Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore...

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 177962

> Pippin:
> 
> See, the more I question, the more interesting answers I find.
> Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that
> European novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with
> everything resolved. I think Americans tend to expect that sort
> of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of it or assume
> that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of
> JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs.
> 
> Lynda:
> 
> Perhaps you're right to an extent.  Although, being from America, 
I had no
> problem with the ending of the book
> and no problem with the camping segment that some seem to find so
> off-putting. Perhaps it's that I read a lot of fantasy and I'm 
somewhat used
> to characters camping, wandering, questing, etc. so it didn't seem 
odd to
> me. And as for the happily ever after, I wasn't hoping for that in 
the first
> place.


Alla:

Now of course I cannot mind read, so I cannot say what Americans 
expect or do not expect from the endings in literature.


But if Pippin's statement could be rephrased something along the 
lines that JKR's ending lies along european cultural tradition, oh 
yeah I am totally on board with that part. I cannot even make the 
comparison, since even though I consider myself to be very well 
read, I do not have systematic knowledge of American literature, it 
is fragmentary, I say. I am familiar with quite a few works, but I 
am sure that I have not read quite a few cornerstones, but I am 
trying to catch on cultural gaps as hard as I can, hehe. Although I 
never be able to do so completely.

So in any event, I also want to reference Magpie's post. Magpie, I 
find it more convenient for the purpose of my post to summarize your 
argument, so if accidentally I summarize incorrectly, please just 
correct me :)

I totally agree that for Harry as **just Harry** the ending is 
happy. He has the gift of the family that he wanted all his life and 
I was so happy for him.

But I guess the second question is whether JKR cared for **other 
stuff** besides Harry's happiness as just Harry and if she did, 
whether she just dropped the ball or deliberately left the ending 
open for those issues.

Now, to me it is most definitely there are topics that she 
deliberately left open. Corruption of the power hungry ministry is 
one ending that is left open in my opinion. Again, of course I 
cannot read anybody's mind JKR's included. But corruption of the 
ministry to me is beautifully done, elegant theme throughout the 
septology starting from Dumbledore refusing the minister post, 
showing Fudge incompetence, Sirius' imprisonment, etc, etc.

I see the theme that was developed. I believe that it was 
deliberately left open to show yes; that social changes do not 
always happen fast (obviously it is my opinion that they are not, 
but we argued about it in the past and not my main point, just my 
speculation why it was left open).

Obviously, if you do not believe that JKR cares about this theme, 
for you ending will look happy. For me, it is left open to 
interpretation.


And if one believes that it is open to interpretation, the ending on 
the society level, then yeah, I see it in complete agreement with 
european tradition. I will be even more specific and limit myself on 
something I know very well - Russian literature of the nineteenth 
century. I mean, resolved endings, WHAT resolved endings?

Take any Chekhov's play. I see no resolution, I see uncertainty and 
wonder for main characters and feeling not needed (one of the main 
themes in Russian literature) and suicide, etc.

I mean, okay, Chekhov's many plays ( Cherry orchid's, Three sisters 
and some others) may not be the direct analogy to what I believe JKR 
may have been doing with the ending, but for example his 
story "Duel", I think quite close. The ending for main characters is 
I suppose quite happy. I guess. But the society that makes young and 
talented men waste their lives and come to stupid duels even if 
later they realized their mistakes, society is not changed, one bit.

Oy, I always give "Crime and punishment" examples and War and peace 
ones, so wanted not to today, but I believe they are on point.


I think ending for Raskolnikov is quite happy after all his trial 
and tribulations - he found God and human love, doesn't he?

But I do believe that Dostoevsky also cares deeply for the evil of 
the society that produces old ladies that lend monies under such 
outrageous percentage (heee, did many Americans ever consider this 
evil by the way? It is a question, NOT an assertion. From what I 
learned and based on Russian cultural tradition Dostoevsky so DID.)

Nothing changes in that society at the end except one person (or 
couple more) changing their views, no?

Does the ending of War and Peace happy and resolved for many main 
characters? Sure it does, but if one will tell me that Tolstoy did 
not care about serves situation and that he just let that theme to 
be dropped, I will laugh and loudly, because it is a fact that he 
did and nothing changed at the end of the book, because NOTHING 
changed in society, no?

Going back to Potterverse, if one believes that JKR decided to just 
drop house elves and leave them to be happy with giving Harry's 
sandwiches, well, that is an interpretation. But the one I am not 
buying. I think it was Mike who was saying that it would be easier 
to buy that house elves are happy to serve humans if they are 
treated well, that this is their culture, etc, if JKR would just 
use "enchantment" instead of enslavement.

Totally, I agree, but I am pretty sure that JKR somewhere in the 
interview compared house elves with slavery and the word is in the 
book too, no?

So, again if one believes that JKR just got tired of house elves 
storyline, of ministry corruption storyline and only cared about 
resolving Harry's journey, sure, ending is happy in my opinion. As I 
said above I believe that especially ministry corruption storyline 
was developed strongly and consistently from book 1 to book 7. I 
never for one second doubted the integrity of that arc, I found it 
fascinating. I do not see it as dropped, I see it as open to 
interpretation, just as many beloved books of mine leave open to 
interpretation the events on the society level – whether it will be 
resolved or not is unclear.

Hmm, it is also interesting about fantasy literature in general. 
Funnily I have not read any fantasy literature except Tolkien before 
I came to live in USA. For couple reasons – it is definitely was not 
Russian tradition to write in this genre ( sci-fi, sure, fantasy, 
not) – now they do, but I do not think it started till maybe fifteen 
years ago, so it was not that available if not translated) and I was 
just not interested. I absolutely think that a lot of fantasy books 
have a tendency to have the ending be both happy and resolved. Sure, 
not all of them, but I think the vast majority of what I read does 
do that. I did found JKR's ending much more familiar cultural 
tradition wise, I sure did.

JMO,

Alla