[HPforGrownups] Deathly Hallows: My Review (SPOILERS!)

[P. Alexis Nguyen]

No: HPFGUIDX 172276

Phyllis:
> I've never been a big "Harry as a Horcrux" fan - I've always thought
> that Harry couldn't be as pure as he is if he had a bit of Voldemort
> inside him. Doesn't Dumbledore tell him in Book 6 that Voldemort
> underestimates the power of a soul that is complete and pure? And
> how could Harry look into the Mirror of Erised and see nothing but
> himself getting the Stone to protect it from Voldemort if a piece of
> Voldemort was inside him? We've seen how powerful these pieces of
> Voldemort can be, but perhaps it's different if the Horcrux isn't
> made intentionally? Harry really wasn't an actual Horcrux, was he?
> A bit of Voldy's unstable soul went into him, but I don't think that
> makes him a Horcrux. In Slughorn's memory, when Riddle asks
> Slughorn how to make a Horcrux, Slughorn tells Riddle "there is a
> spell - don't ask me, I don't know!" So presumably there's more to
> making a Horcrux that simply having your soul break off and go into
> another object/person/thing after you commit murder. Despite this,
> I thought the self-sacrifice this required of Harry was wonderful.

Ali:
I'm in agreement here, and I think, for us, it comes down to a matter of
semantics, sadly enough.  Like you, I can accept that a portion of
Voldemort's soul latched itself, somehow, onto Harry, but as Horcrux-making
was supposedly an evil art and one that requires a bit of research to learn
how to make one, an "accidental Horcrux" seems immensely odd.  Again,
though, I guess it's just semantics since, whatever we choose to call it,
the mechanics are the same, and it all comes down to a piece of Voldie's
soul attached to Harry.


Phyllis:
> I was having a bit of trouble with the "rightful owner" of the wand
> concept – I could see how it worked for Draco, since he
> actually "took" the elder wand from Dumbledore with a disarming
> charm, but I was struggling with how it worked for Harry, since he
> didn't actually take the elder wand from Draco – he took Draco's own
> hawthorn wand. <<SNIP>>

Ali:
Yup.  I found this part particularly odd as well.  When the wand thing was
first explained, I thought that it was necessary that the wand itself was
taken away, not merely that the owner was defeated, but then, I also
supposed that, due to the elder wand having a history of evil, one has to
kill the former owner in order to obtain the wand.  Oh well.  I was wrong
with the latter; why not the former? :)


Phyllis:
> If Harry wasn't to be a goner, I thought we'd lose someone really
> important (like Ron or Hagrid). But perhaps Rowling thinks killing
> Dumbledore and Snape was enough. And losing Lupin and Tonks, when
> they had just found happiness with one another and had just had a
> baby, was tough (presumably Bellatrix killed them to "prune" her
> family tree?), although it would have been more powerful if we could
> have seen the deaths happen.

Ali:
Again, I agree.  I was expecting the Trio to live but thought someone quite
close to them, such as Hagrid, would die.  Instead, a bunch of the other
characters were killed instead, and the emotional impact on me, and I know
I'm in the very small minority, was not large.  We didn't get to see too
many of the emotional deaths, and frankly, only the twins' terrifying moment
kept itself in my brains and only because George lost an ear earlier.  I
felt like killing Lupin AND Tonks was unnecessary, especially them having
just had little Ted, and I think the only reason I feel that way is because,
not having seen any portion of their death, the emotional impact was lost on
me and makes me annoyed that, by killing off Lupin, JKR has gotten rid of
Lupin's chance to truly live happily, without terror, and has also also rid
Harry of the final chance to, after the war when he does have time to think
about such things, ask after his mother and father.


Phyllis:
> I fully expected to be vindicated in my conviction that Snape has
> always been evil, particularly given how he did nothing to spare the
> Muggle studies teacher from death, told Voldemort about Harry's
> correct departure date, took part in the chase to kill Harry after
> he left Privet Drive and Sectumsempra-d George's ear off (loved the
> ear jokes!). If it was not covered in spiders, I would take my hat
> off to all LOLLIPOPS believers (of which I was never one).

Ali:
I think I might well get some strong contentions on this opinion, but that's
just how it is.  JKR has yet proven to me that Snape isn't evil.  In fact,
while I always thought Snape wasn't good, I never even thought Snape was
evil *until* this book.  Let me explain that one before I get buried under
the flames.

Before DH, Snape was a man who stood for something.  He did what he wanted
and didn't worry about what others thought.  He wasn't nice, but his methods
had reason.  True, his teaching Neville was less than desirable, but I've
had teachers who've yelled and thought that served as motivation.  Snape
just wasn't evil; he was just awful and mean - he exemplifies Sirius' remark
that the world isn't divided between good guys and Death Eaters.  In DH, he
was a guy who always went after the dark arts, wanted to be a Death Eater
from very early on; he was someone who chose that over his friend
Lily.  (And don't even get me started on how much I dislike Snape-Lily.)  In
the end, I feel like JKR wanted me to believe that "Snape turned good for
the love of a woman," but what I felt was that this man decide to *switch
sides* for his own purposes.  He didn't turn good; he bargained with
Voldemort to save Lily first.  Had it worked out that Lily was saved, I
doubt that Snape would've worked for Dumbledore.  Working for good didn't
make him any less evil.  Pah.  (Yes, start sending the flames my way.  I
accept that my view is entirely unpopular.)


Phyllis:
> I didn't think it worked to have Ron open the Chamber of Secrets to
> get out the basilisk fangs - either you know Parseltongue or you
> don't - how could he fake it? If that were the case, presumably
> Dumbledore could have made his way into the Chamber in Book 2.

Ali: The last battle was filled with these little irksome points, at least
for me.  Ron faking Parseltongue.  Percy joining the battle at the last
moment and there being one giant family reunion.  The fire in the Room of
Requirement being exactly what was necessary to destroy the diadem.  All
tiny things that, sadly, meant that I didn't enjoy the book as much as I
could've.


Phyllis:
> I could have done without the "19 years later" epilogue, especially
> since the flow kept breaking when I had to pause to puzzle out who
> was related to whom. I think Rowling probably felt a need to include
> the epilogue to avoid being pestered for a sequel to explain who
> everyone winds up with. But I thought the book would have ended
> better without it.

Ali:
I think it's a matter of taste.  I generally hate "happily ever after, tie
everything up with a bow" endings, so it only follows that I would find the
epilogue cloying.  For people who do enjoy that sort of ending, it probably
was nice knowing what the next generation of witches & wizards might be
like.  I think the book would've been much stronger without the epilogue;
some others probably thought it was enjoyable and necessary.

That's all I've got at the moment since I'm still at work and an overly long
email would not be good.  :)

~Ali


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]