Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH LONG

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 177524

Magpie wrote:
> Well, yes. I'm sure the person is advancing it as an interpretation
that works. I'm strictly talking about my way of reading the book and
how many interpretations just don't ring true for me at all except as
something written by the reader that isn't backed up in the text but
grafted onto it. <snip>

> I mean, clearly some of the things that to me are nice but huge 
stretches work for you, but that still doesn't make them any more 
believable to me, or sound like JKR's style of writing, so they don't
help me.
> 
> It'd be great if I thought this stuff was convincing rather than
just eloquent, because it would put some great depth in the book. I
just don't find the explanations that it is there convincing.  <snip>
> 
Carol responds:

But the same thing works in reverse, doesn't it? Remarks along the
lines of "I'm disappointed" and "the book doesn't live up to its
promise" are subjective reflections of an individual reader's
disappointment, not objective analyses of the text. (Value judgments
of any kind, even those based on standardized criteria, are by their
very nature subjective.) You say that extrapolations from the text
aren't convincing, but all these generalizations about how bad the
book is aren't convincing, either. How about pointing out *specific^
flaws and *showing* that they're flaws, or rather, why you interpret
them as flaws? (I do "get" the problem with the Unforgiveable Curses,
for example, and the apparent contradiction between their depiction in
GoF and their use in DH, and I agree that the apparent inconsistency
within JKR's moral universe can legitimately be interpreted as a flaw.
But that's one specific flaw, and it does not apply to the book as a
whole, only to certain scenes.)

You talk providing about canon support, but I don't see it in the
recent spate of posts from three or four disappointed readers. Please
correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see are charges that the book is a
Calvinist (or antinomian) tract, that Slytherin is still the House of
the "damned" (or, at least, the enemy of the other Houses--I would
argue that since the Slytherins didn't fight in the battle, whatever
Draco and his cronies were doing partially excepted, but sat out the
battle, so they were neutral rather than enemies), and that the House
unity "promised" by the Sorting Hat (which actually expressed an
appeal for unity rather than a promise) was violated. I have yet to
see evidence from the books other than "the Sorting Hat's new Song" in
OoP that House unity would be an important motif and I don't
understand the emphasis being placed on it, as if the presence or
absence of House unity determines whether the book is good or bad.
(We've talked about writing style, but what about plot development?
Suspense? Characterization? Humor? Believability? *Other* themes? What
do the characters' choices reveal about them, for example?)

I understand that some readers find the book disappointing based on
the violation of their expectations, which, in turn, were based on
their interpretation of previous books, as if some single element
(House unity or Draco's character arc) were the whole book. I don't
find such arguments convincing for the same reason you don't find
defenses of DH convincing--many of the posts attacking the book appear
to be subjective reactions with very little canon support and a lot of
question-begging (taking the point to be proven for granted and using
an argument to support itself). They may not be extrapolating on the
text, but they're not examining it, either.

The House unity thing seems to me like one minor failing, if it's a
failing at all. Why judge the whole book on the basis of one
(perceived) flaw? As Alla pointed out, the expectation of House unity
seems to be based solely on "The Sorting Hat's New Song" in OoP. Does
it have any other basis in canon, or was that expectation solely the
hope of fans who didn't like JKR's depiction of Slytherin and the
Sorting system in general, a false hope that she would see what those
readers considered to be the light? If so, it's unrealistic to expect
her to deal with that motif at all (except in the Dark parody of House
unity proposed by Voldemort).

It would help, BTW, if you quoted one of those "eloquent"
interpretations that doesn't ring true for you and then used canon and
logic to show why you find it unconvincing. Otherwise, all we have is
 your opinion that they're extrapolating on canon rather than offering
an interpretation you don't agree with. 

Magpie:
> If everything's just an interpretation than Harry can be said to be
going to Mars at the end. Anything can happen between the lines. We
argue to try to show that one interpretation works more than another:
"Clearly this scene shows that Hermione and Harry were in love with
each other, not Ron and Ginny respectively!" or "Clearly Harry's line
to Albus means that they're on the way to House Unity!"

Carol responds:

I agree. We need to look at particular scenes to see why one
interpretation works better than another (or why both are valid since
a definitive interpretation is probably impossible). So let's look at
the Albus Severus scene (since I think it's a key to the whole
Snape/Slytherin plot arc). *Why* doesn't Harry's line to Albus Severus
 show that they're on the way to House unity, in your view, and what
*does* it show? Why is that bit of dialogue included in the epilogue
at all if "then Slytherin House will have gained an excellent student,
won't it? It doesn't matter to us" (DH Am. ed. 758) is not an
improvement over "Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave,
wouldn't you?" (671)? Why isn't having Severus Snape, "probably the
bravest man I ever knew," as the representative Slytherin a huge
improvement over Slytherin as the House of Voldemort and the one from
which most of the Death Eaters came? It's nineteen years later, and,
IMO, we can clearly see a change in attitudes exemplified by Harry's
generation. Draco's nod to Harry suggests that he, too, is not ruling
out the possibility or desirability of a friendship between little
Scorpius and Harry's or Ron's children. The misty, dreamlike
atmosphere of the scene suggests an amorphous future, open to change,
without the rigid prejudices of the previous generations. Maybe they
will become friends, maybe they won't. But they probably won't become
enemies solely because of their choice of Houses like James and
Severus two generations back. Harry is at least attempting to open
Albus Severus's mind, a huge change from Hagrid's ingrained prejudice
against Slytherin transferring itself to Harry. Maybe you would have
preferred to see Draco and Harry and their sons on better terms, but,
IMO, that would be unrealistic. Things aren't perfect, but surely
they're better than they were.

Magpie:
<snip> It wasn't like Harry's "He would never forgive Snape!" (Harry
did change how he felt about those people, just imo in an incredibly
lame and undramatic way.) <snip>

Carol responds:

"Lame and undramatic" sounds subjective to me, not the sort of thing
that can be proved or disproved through canon. You were expecting
something different, maybe a scene like Mrs. Weasley's defeat of
Bellatrix for Snape? I thought that Snape's death scene was more
dramatic than any we've seen so far, especially that last startling
bit of magic, a few exchanged words, and the look into each other's
eyes, and it leads to something important--a complete rethinking of
Snape *and* the "truth" about Harry's confrontation with Voldemort,
which must not be a gladiator going into the arena to fight but a
willing sacrifice. "Lame and undramatic?" Evidently the scene failed
to have the intended emotional impact on you (as a reader who already
knew that Snape was DDM and expected something beyond love for Lily as
his primary motivation). I had the same expectation but was
nevertheless profoundly moved to a variety of strong emotions by the
scene, which is of the utmost importance both in terms of the defeat
of Voldemort and of Harry's forgiveness of Snape (and Snape's remorse
and redemption). I would call it powerful and profound and almost
unbearably moving. And of course I know perfectly well that that's my
own reaction and not an objective assessment of the scene as a piece
of writing. I would say, however, that if the majority of readers feel
the emotions that the author intended them to feel (horror and
revulsion at Bathilda!Nagini, shock and horror at Snape's death, grief
and pity at Dobby's death), then the scene is effectively written.

To return to Albus Severus, whose very name gave me a surge of immense
satisfaction and affection for Harry, JKR chose to add that moment as
a symbolic indication of Harry's forgiveness of and admiration for
Snape, a complete turnaround from "He would never forgive Snape.
Never!" It may not have worked for you, but it meant a great deal to
me. Thank you, Harry. Thank you, JKR.

Magpie:
> JKR isn't a bad writer because she didn't write about House Unity.

Carol:

True. <grin>

Magpie:
 She could have written something else that was just as compelling or
more so. I thought the book was disappointing on its own. I didn't 
like what she did write, so the ghost of the book that might have 
been is still hanging around. <snip>
> 
Carol:

But don't you see how subjective this judgment is? House unity is
compelling to you but not necessarily to all readers in and of itself.
And to say that she "could have written something . . . just as
compelling" is also subjective, considering that some of us found,
say, Harry's visit to his parents' grave or Ron's destruction of the
locket Horcrux or Snape's memories *very* compelling (and the
Bathilda!Nagini scene in a hair-raising, horrible sort of way). What's
compelling to you is not necessarily compelling to another reader and
vice versa. 

Just out of curiosity, what "compelling" scenes or themes (aside from
House unity and a thoroughly reformed Draco) do you think should have
been included in "the book that might have been"? (Some scenes were
necessarily excluded by HRH's absence from Hogwarts and isolation from
the WW in general. I'd have liked more of Hogwarts, especially Snape's
efforts to protect the students, but that would have spoiled the
plot.) And how is their absence a flaw in the book as opposed to a
violation of your expectations? How could they have been brought in
without hopelessly clogging and slowing down an already complicated plot?

Magpie:
> Stories raise expectations--that's part of what they do. I expected
Harry would kill Voldemort, that evil would be vanquished, that 
Hermione would be brainy and Ron would be snarky and Luna would be 
vague. That we'd find out what side Snape was on and the Horcruxes 
would get destroyed. Those are all things we should have been  expecting.

Carol:

Exactly. And all of those expectations were met. (A little too much in
Hermione's case, IMO. How is it that she knows protective spells that
adults like Ted Tonks and Dirk Cresswell don't know? Oh, well. Can't
have everything, and our heroes have to survive. <g>) Side note: *Is*
Ron "snarky"? I thought our stand-in snarky character was Phineas
Nigellus. How about alternately funny and irritable, taking out his
self-doubts and jealousy and frustration on his friends? (A normal
teenage boy, IOW. I guess I don't need to repeat how much I liked the
symbolic destruction of his doubts and fears in the locket Horcrux scene.)
> 
Magpie:
> If a writer raises an expectation and delivers something else and
the thing she actually did deliver still leaves me saying, "I'm more 
interested in that other thing," that's a misstep. 

Carol:

How is one reader's interest in a "thing" that the author chose not to
focus on a "misstep"? It simply means that the reader would have had a
different focus, a different plot, a different story. It doesn't mean
that JKR's chosen path is flawed, just that JKR is focused on
different elements of her own story than the reader is. As I said, the
isolation of the three main characters (temporarily reduced to two in
mid-book) necessitates that we see less of other characters and their
related subplots, themes, and motifs than we do in earlier books.
Setting aside the first chapter, in which we see both Snape and Draco
from the outside and Harry not at all, JKR gives us as much as she can
of Draco by having the kidnapping by Snatchers occur during Easter
vacation and having him enter the RoR; she gives us glimpses of Snape
through a newspaper article and an overheard conversation and Phineas
Nigellus (also the doe Patronus) before Harry himself encounters him,
misunderstandings and hatred still intact. Neville becomes prominent
near the end, and we can infer the changes in his character through
the changes in his attitude and behavior. If I were judging the book
by what I would have written as opposed to what JKR actually wrote, I
might call the depiction of McGonagall a "misstep." I didn't like it,
or her (McG as she appears in DH). But much as I'd love to argue that
her actions are OOC, I just have to shrug and say, "Yes, McG would
have done that." Too bad she didn't know the truth about Snape and too
bad she extended her prejudices to the other Slytherins based on
Pansy's foolish panic and too bad she called the Crucio gallant, but I
can't realistically say that those actions are inconsistent with the
depiction of her in earlier books. I can't call her depiction a flaw
in the book, only a disappointment from my perspective. (Too bad Snape
didn't get a chance to save her life and show *her.* Humpf. <g>)

Magpie:
What I said above 
> was just that I accept that JKR just didn't actually want to write
about House Unity. So when people who claim the book worked really
well claim that House Unity actually did happen brilliantly, it seems
like they feel like it ought to have happened for the series to 
conclude. 

Carol:
I don't know of a single person who claims that "House unity actually
did happen brilliantly." What we've said is that Slytherin is no
longer the House of budding Death Eaters and the epilogue shows or at
least implies the potential for House unity in the future, for an
altered Slytherin with real heroes to look up to and emulate. Assuming
that Slughorn will remain in charge for awhile, it might have a chance
to focus on genial ambition rather than sinister tendencies toward the
Dark Arts (never convincingly demonstrated n the books, IMO) and the
pure-blood supremacy ethic, whose unhealthy implications have been
pretty thoroughly demonstrated in DH. Note "might," not "will." The
door is open for change, especially since the hat that selects the
future Slytherins has its own agenda, the House unity that some
readers find so important (in contrast to JKR, who privileges Harry's
struggles and his search for "truth" over what she evidently regards
as secondary and tertiary themes, motifs, and conflicts).

Magpie:
I think she didn't write it, period. She didn't seem to think it was
necessary. Harry was the defender of what came before. It was
Voldemort who had the plan for big change.

Carol:
I'm not sure what you mean here. Harry's attitude toward Slytherin is,
if not a 180-degree turn away from his previous view, at least 90
degrees from it (markedly different from what we see in SS/PS, as I've
shown above). I don't think Harry cares about House unity per se, but
at least he's working toward more amicable relations between the two
Houses that most concern him, as shown by his words to Albus Severus.
How that makes him a "defender of what came before" escapes me. As for
Voldie, he's not advocating House unity. He's advocating House
abolition, turning Hogwarts into a second Durmstrang with the whole
school wearing Slytherin's colors (and representing, no doubt, the
worst side of Slytherin as symbolized by the Carrows, not the best
side as represented by snape, Regulus, and possibly Slughorn).
> 
Magpie:
> As to what it has to do with JKR as a writer, well, speaking in a
generic term, choosing what to write about is part of being a 
storyteller, so if somebody thinks the author avoided the good stuff 
that's a criticism of her as a writer. 

Carol:
No, because what "somebody thinks" is "the good stuff" is subjective.
Obviously, JKR herself has a different view of what constitutes "the
good stuff," or should we say, the important elements. Clearly, the
center for her is Harry's story, his suffering and struggle and
ultimate victory. Harry's search for "the truth," a phrase he or the
narrator uses multiple times in the book, seems to me an important
motif that has barely been touched on in our HPfGU discussions.
Ironically, the Seeker asks if he's meant "to know but not to seek"
(quoted from memory). That idea seems to me to be worth exploring (but
not in this post).

In focusing on Harry, and secondarily, on Ron and Hermione, and on the
Horcruxes vs. Hallows conflict, JKR has to relegate certain story
elements to the sidelines. Snape is there, lingering in the
background, along with the mystery of the white doe (Snape again) and
the mirror fragment and DD's backstory (which perhaps received too
much page time, but that's my subjective judgment) and Godric's Hollow
and Grindelwald--not to mention Snatchers and the plight of the
Muggle-borns and the takeover of the Ministry by Death Eaters and
Dobby and Kreacher/Regulus and all the elements that had to be fit
into a chronological plotline (admittedly stretched out to fit roughly
into the Hogwarts school year, ending in May rather than June this
time, which perhaps gives the staff and students time to return to
normal, bury the dead, and take their exams. Or maybe not.)

Of course, the book isn't perfect. And I, for one, wish that the
continuity editor had corrected small inconsistencies like the Statute
of Secrecy being suddenly passed in 1689 rather than 1692 or skulls
suddenly being a feature of the Slytherin common room when no such
thing is described in CoS. Those errors are genuine flaws, but,
fortunately, they're small ones.

Now I do blame JKR for things like forgetting that Sirius Black didn't
live at 12 GP when Lily wrote her letter, so its presence there is
hard to account for (and should not be the reader's job). The date of
the letter also seems off. (Similarly, I blame her for not checking
CoS to see whether Draco actually had the Hand of Glory.) But those
are small blemishes that only temporarily raise questions in some
readers' minds and distract them from the story. Other readers won't
notice them at all or at least won't be bothered by them. But I don't
blame her for not presenting the Slytherins as some readers wanted to
see them or for making love (as important to her as courage) the
central motivation of both of her redeemed and courageous Slytherins
(Snape and Regulus), with a more selfish form of love saving the
Malfoys from DEism and themselves.

And while we have a right to expect consistency (even if it is "the
hobgoblin of small minds"), I think it's a mistake to impose our own
expectations on a book and judge it as bad for failing to meet them
when meeting *our* expectations was no part of JKR's intention. In
fact, I'm not even sure that we can judge the book by how well it
reflects *JKR's* intentions since it's so difficult to determine
something so shifting and amorphous as an intention and so much of the
writing process is unconscious, reflecting values and beliefs that the
writer takes for granted. Planning and revision are conscious
processes, but writing itself often is not, as anyone who's been
"inspired" knows well.

Magpie:
But my problems with DH go far beyond "She didn't do House Unity or do
something better with Draco Malfoy." 
> 
> I mean, when I'm criticizing the book I feel like I ought to talk 
about what's in the, not what's not in the book.

Carol:
Exactly. Why *aren't* we talking about "what's in the book"? Why *are*
we talking about what isn't there? You say you want canon-based
arguments. So do I. And that's hard to do when we're talking about
what JKR "failed" to do. Why not talk about what she *did* do? Themes,
symbols, motifs, characters, conflicts other than Gryffindor/Slytherin
that *were* resolved? (And "better" is again a subjective term. I
thought that Draco was handled realistically, in a natural extension
of his indecisiveness at the end of HBP, as I've already discussed
elsewhere.)

Magpie:
<snip> > My criticisms of Draco's storyline aren't just that he didn't
do X that I imagined him doing, but that I thought he was all over the
place with no purpose, he confused me and seemed pointless whenever he
showed up and just petered out after a really good beginning in the
first chapter. 

Carol:
Okay, now I feel like we're getting somewhere: you're presenting a
specific complaint as opposed to generalized accusations of "bad
writing," along with specific charges against JKR that partially
reflect your reaction (confusion) but mostly relate to the actual
writing. It would help me to see your perspective by answering some
questions and looking, as you said above, at "what's in the text." 

Why do you consider the first chapter "a really good beginning"? How
is Draco "all over the place" (rather than consistently afraid and
indecisive, which is how I see him, in contrast to Lucius, who seems
willing to do anything to get his old position as Voldie's right-hand
man back)? How does he "just peter out" when he's actively trying to
prevent Crabbe from hexing Harry in the RoR? Is your confusion really
the mark of bad writing (writing that readers in general find
confusing) or does it result from her "failure" to provide a "better"
extension of Draco's character arc? <snip>

Carol, hoping to see the same thing Magpie does, analysis of what JKR
did write as opposed to what she didn't write (only I'd rather focus
on interpreting the meaning of the text rather than evaluating the
quality of the writing, which is largely a subjective judgment)