Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape)

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 177477

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>

> <snip> But it seems strange to me to
> condemn a book for not meeting our expectations, for not being the
> book we would have written. 

If I could have written these books myself, I wouldn't have read 
them!  I was open to any resolution of the story, frankly.  That 
doesn't mean I have to like what I got, does it?

Expectations are part of human life.  So is fooling yourself.  People 
get into relationships thinking they know someone and are later 
surprised to find that someone is abusive, for example.  The harsher 
judges among us might think it's stupid, but it happens quite often.  
Sometimes the abused even make excuses for their tormentors, for very 
complex reasons.

I also don't have to say we bring our own experiences and viewpoint 
to reading a book, or to any enterprise.  I might like some themes 
and authors more than other people like them.  I realized long ago 
that I'm not going to change anyone's mind when there is an emotional 
connection to an idea.  There are very few rational people in the 
world, anyway, according to Kiersey.  I like to experience different 
perspectives, but also like to know the basis of the view, whether 
it's clear-eyed or seen through rose-colored glasses, for example.  
There are expectations and there are prejudices.

I did not like HBP.  I felt that Snape's character was reduced to the 
point only a black-and-white story could be told about him; that 
Harry didn't really learn anything valuable from Dumbledore, was 
validated for lying and cheating, and showed no emotional growth even 
though he almost killed Draco; that the romance themes in the book 
were poorly handled and demeaned everyone involved; that Slytherin's 
Slughorn was yet another unpleasant representation of that House; 
that needless cruelty permeated JKR's world, as shown in the cave; 
that the Ministry was once again hapless yet sinister; that Voldemort 
was as disappointing as a villain could be, given his sociopathology 
somehow based on genetics.  If found the moral messages of HBP to be 
quite dubious.

So, my expectations for the seventh book were somewhat low.  JKR 
managed to fall below even those abysmal expectations with DH.  Why 
did I bother to read it?  One reason: I liked Snape's character and 
wanted to know how he ended up.  I had hope; unreasonable, perhaps, 
but there it was, and it even carried over to other characters 
besides Snape.

What I got in DH was a book that lauded stupidity, instinct, breeding 
("blood" and house), passivity, and loyalty over learning, planning, 
choice, effort, and individual responsibility; that threw out or 
literally killed off every difficult story line in favor of trite 
resolutions (house-elf liberation comes down to Hermione/Ron kissing, 
werewolf liberation and integration come down to one-sentence death, 
house division comes down to Slytherin all bad, yes, even Snape who 
some continue to view as exclusively selfish and one-note in his 
motivations, and Slughorn, who some continue to view as hapless and 
lesser of two evils, and Draco, who some continue to view as cowardly 
and weak); that seems oblivious to its own double standards for 
heroes versus bad guys, not to mention lessened standards for female 
characters (Hermione the gatherer and food preparer); and perhaps 
worst of all, was put together so sloppily, with plotholes, deus ex 
machina galore, 180 degree changes in character (Kreacher, Snape, 
Dumbledore to some extent), differing degrees of protection on 
Horcruxes, echoes of other works (locket=one ring, Molly=Ripley), too 
much teasing about Dumbledore's past, and groan, on and on and on.  
So, JKR did not fail to meet my expectations.  She just fell far 
below my standards for a viable piece of fiction and far away from my 
personal convictions.  I don't think she should have to fit my 
worldview, or that any work should.  That should not preclude me from 
criticizing the worldview that I find in her work.

Did I like anything about DH?  Well, while I was reading it, as long 
as I was able to suspend disbelief and frustration with just how dumb 
the Trio was, I enjoyed the action scenes.  They read like they were 
written for a movie.  Funny thing.  I honestly didn't feel much else, 
except twinges of admiration at George for his attitude towards his 
lost ear, sorrow at Dobby's funeral, applause for Luna and Neville, 
the throwaway heroes, and ... that's all I can think of.  The 
Prince's Story left me cold as it was cursory and introduced more 
contradictions, Dumbledore's story made me hate him, Draco and the 
Malfoys (not the band) confused me, the rest... eh.

Addressing the children's books argument, I agree that the first 
three books were children's books.  GOF was more nuanced and thus 
more fun for me, as an adult.  My favorite book is OOTP.  It 
introduced tremendous complexity to a number of characters, and was 
the book that drew me into HP fandom. The last two books: children's 
books, after all, and then hopefully you are reading them with 
children to follow-up the questions they raise.

I don't want to read DH a second time, as you encourage.  Why should 
I make the effort to read it again when I disliked it so much the 
first time, a dislike that grows with each consideration?  I am not 
looking for small moments to enjoy.  I am looking at overall message 
and execution.  I do not admire either in DH.

I have read eloquent appraisals of DH since its publication, and they 
all seem like wish fulfillment to me, as if people are filling in the 
writing that JKR did not do herself, "this is what she meant."  This 
is funny to me, since ... what are expectations, after all?

For example:

> <snip> Harry's ability to see certain characters
> (Snape and Draco in particular) more clearly--finally? 

I don't see this.  He gave his son "Al" the middle name Severus 
because of a trait Harry valued, bravery, not because he saw Snape 
clearly.  He didn't hex Draco on site at the train station presumably 
because Draco's kept his nose clean, not because he understands him.

> It's enough (for me) that
> he told Ron and Hermione about Snape's memories

Did he?  When?  In the big dueling scene?

> that he publicly vindicated him

It read more to me that he was rubbing into Voldemort's face that 
Snape was really Dumbledore's man all along and that Snape loved 
Harry's mother, so there, Voldemort ... like Voldemort even cared!  
Oh, yeah, Voldemort did care; somewhere along the line, he told Snape 
a pureblood woman would have been better for him (sorry for the 
sarcasm, but I can't help it here).

> and that he named his second son after him and
> Dumbledore, the other imperfect and forgiven headmaster.

Severus is Al's non-used middle name and what else?  Had Harry never 
before told Al how brave Snape the Slytherin was?  Al is 11 years 
old, after all.  (I don't want to get into Dumbledore and Harry's 
relationship, frankly... it's another whole discussion.)

My point is that some people can read a lot into very little, can 
even inject events and messages which may not be there.  I envy 
people the ability to do that, but I am not going to do it myself.  
And I hope you realize that am not personally criticizing you, who I 
respect.  I just find extrapolations of data interesting.

> There are two ways to deal with disappointment in a book. The first 
> is to reread it on its own terms, trying to understand and accept
> it and enjoy at least some parts of it. ("Moby Dick," for example, 
> wasn't at all what I expected, and I didn't come to love it until 
> the third time through.) The second is to put it behind you and go 
> on to something else, preferably without any expectations that will 
> ruin the experience of reading the book if the author "fails" to 
> meet them.

Yes, love it or leave it.  My mother's been saying that to me all my 
life.  I say yet another way is to critically examine a tremendously 
popular piece of fiction based on whatever criteria you feel to be 
reasonable or elucidative.  I'm an American.  Freedom of speech and 
all that.

So, there it is.  What I don't like about saying these things on this 
forum is that either someone will feel I have to be saved from my own 
opinions and become a born-again DH-evangelist, or someone will take 
the tiny instances in which I have misspoken and address those 
instead of addressing the whole thing.  Such is life.

lealess