Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH LONG

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 177546

> 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. 

Magpie:
Of course. But I'm not so much talking about "it was disappointing" 
or "it was great" but more stuff like "this is what this line in 
canon means is happening and it's a good/bad thing." I've found 
certaining readings on both the positive and negative sides to be 
unconvincing, and it's not like anything positive anybody has said 
about DH I didn't believe. But the negative interpretations don't 
have to convince me. I already feel negatively about the book--if I 
don't happen to agree with a particular criticism we're still united 
in not liking the book. It's the people telling me the book was good 
that I'd be reading to see if I would change my overall attitude. And 
a lot of the wonderfully uplifting interpretations I've read (as 
opposed to just people who seem to see the book the way I do and like 
it while I don't) don't to me seem to have much to do with what's 
actually written there at all. So they're not convincing to me.

Carol:
(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.)

Magpie:
In this post I was being asked about my own reactions, which is why I 
only talked about my reactions. I wasn't proving one interpretation 
over another, but describing my reaction. I have been happy to talk 
about specific flaws elsewhere, but I'm not doing it a lot on this 
list because people have been getting upset about too much negativity 
ruining their experience. However, I have certainly already spoken up 
to argue with some specific positive interpretations that I thought 
didn't hold up in canon and have said why in those posts where I was 
addressing a specific theory.

Carol:> 
> 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.

Magpie:
I can't talk about those things, because those aren't my specific 
interpreations. As I said to Alla, I don't see the Hat's song as a 
promise that House Unity will happen. I thought it was a perfectly 
reasonable guess since the Hat seemed to be warning them that they 
needed to do this to save the school--just as I thought the line "he 
would never forgive Snape!" was a sign that Harry would forgive 
Snape. It turns out it wasn't a promise, it was just a random opinion 
interjected by the Sorting Hat. 

Obviously House Unity wasn't an important motif ever (if by House 
Unity we mean all four houses united). That seems clear as day now. 
The way it looks to me, Slytherin has their part in the school, it's 
just not one of an equal house, but rather the house that keeps the 
less than noble qualities. So obviously JKR didn't fail at doing 
House Unity when it was never their intention. I might find the set 
up she prefers to leavea a bad taste in my mouth, but she did it 
consistently. What I flatly disagree with are claims that we could be 
presented with a House that's separate from all the others throughout 
canon, and then just assume that off-page and between the lines this 
House Unity storyline is actually happening or going to happen, any 
more than I'd assume that House Elf freedom is coming after the story 
ends. It could happen, but it's a different story. I have to be shown 
how and why for it to be real to me.

Carol:
> (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, 

Magpie:
Or based on the fact that they didn't like what was written--iow, not 
that they were reading it wrong. I thought a lot of the book was full 
of contrivances that made it not only unbelievable but boring, and 
that many of the points of characterization were a bit clunky and 
seemed to be there as an attempt to pad out the year so that we could 
stick with a school calendar without school without really leading 
anywhere--here again I suppose I'm at fault that when something like 
Lupin's odd behavior was introduced my expectations were raised for 
it to go somewhere that felt like it was building rather than just 
being a contained bit of business we get reports on that he takes 
care of off-page. But as I said, I'm not bringing all of my thoughts 
on the book to the group because I'm trying not to be negative about 
everything I'm negative about.

None of these things have to do with House Unity, since as I said I 
don't consider that a particular flaw in DH--you can't fail at a 
storyline you're not writing as far as I can see. I think that the 
set up that we *do* have in the book is done perfectly competently, 
but is also a set up that I find bizarre and creepy, and one that 
doesn't seem to say anything much true about the world or people as I 
recognize it, so it's going to be something that keeps me from much 
caring for the book. In the end the values and world it seemed to be 
fighting for didn't seem very inspiring to me personally. I don't 
know whether that can be discussed as a flaw in the writing. Though I 
have discussed it elsewhere when disagreeing with certain 
interpretations about, say, the epilogue. 

I think the House Unity thing is talked about a lot because it's a 
way of discussing what makes people uncomfortable about the books. 
The way Slytherin is set up actually does seem to be a bigger problem 
in this world than whether or not one snakey-bad guy gets killed or 
not so some people who won't go along with that being part of what 
they consider a happy ending. 

I would, however, not say that it's based on just the Sorting Hat's 
new song. It starts the second Harry hears that there isn't a bad 
wizard who wasn't born into Slytherin, and Harry refuses it, and 
there's the Heir of Slytherin and they're always against Slytherin 
and on and on. This House is the biggest problems at Hogwarts 
throughout the series. That's where people got their wrong idea that 
this was a problem to be addressed. I got it wrong, but I can't blame 
myself too much for not realizing that a House of...what to call 
them? Sin eaters? was in fact an important part of the world-
buildling. Slytherin's House of Low-lifes is a very important part of 
this world. (Another reason I personally don't by all the second 
generation kids falling into friendship after the final page very 
likely, or even that they're halfway there.) Many people have no 
problem with this set up, some don't like it.

As you put it, Voldemort is the one who wants unity (of a dark kind). 
Harry's job is to stop that new social order from happening. He is 
not offering a counter-revolution instead.

Carol:
> 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.

Magpie:
I quote them when I choose to argue them on the list. This thread is 
talking about our general feelings of disappointment and how they 
have or have not changed. 


> 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? 

Magpie:
It's not like I haven't already answered this in numerous threads 
that were actually about this topic after DH came out. Nineteen years 
after the Battle, JKR establishes the same attitude about Slytherin 
we came in with. James is teasing his brother that he might go there, 
and AS is worried he will. None of these things had to be in there--
she could actually have established the Slytherin had changed simply 
by showing the kids 19 years later as having a different attitude 
(which no, would not have been totally unrealistic). Harry's response 
is a perfectly normal mature parental response: Whatever house you're 
in is fine. You happen to be named after the Slytherin who was good 
enough for Gryffindor--the house of the brave. But if it really 
bothers you, the hat won't put you there if you don't want it. Seems 
more about Harry loving his son and giving the standard parental 
response than any huge change in Slytherin. It certainly isn't 
something 11-year-old Harry would have said, but it just doesn't 
indicate some big social shift to me.

But could this mean that Al is going to get Sorted into Slytherin 
even though he shows no sign of being one? Could it mean that he'll 
be bff with Scorpius?

Yeah, it could. Although of course the author's own interpretation is 
merely to say that Slytherin is "diluted" now and so not the bastion 
of Pureblood superiority, but retains its rep as the Dark Arts House 
(awesome!). Scorpius has many things already going against him, 
according to her, not the least that name. (What could Scorpius have 
going against him at 11 years old, exactly? Could it perhaps be 
anything like his father had going against him?)

But whether or not these things could happen, imo, Slytherin's role 
as the Dark Arts House, the somehow "bad" house is established in 
book 1 and goes consistently for 7 more books--ending with it being 
clearly different from the other houses in the final battle. Turning 
it into just another house equal to others after thousands of years 
requires an actual story and change for me. If House Unity wasn't 
ever a theme in the books, why on earth would I assume that a scene 
19 years later that mostly shows who everybody married, with the same 
people still being friends with each other, with their children 
having similar ideas about Slytherin that their parents had, means 
that it's on its way? 

To me it makes far more sense to say that Snape's managing to earn 
the compliment that maybe he'd been Sorted wrong at 11 by being so 
brave and thus Gryffindor is simply a sign that maybe one day the 
dream could happen--but that was always true. As the author said in 
an interview, that's why they keep Slytherin around, in the 
Dumbledore-like hope that one day they could have unity. (Though I 
think canon suggests a completely different reason for keeping them 
around.) Maybe thousands of years in the future Slytherin will change 
enough so that they can join the rest of the school. But it didn't 
happen in this story and it didn't happen 19 years after this story 
so I don't see how it's part of this story. If little Scorpius is 
going to become friends with Albus like Snape was friends with Lily 
and have it actually lead to House Unity, JKR will have to write that 
book for it to happen, imo. The same misty possibility for change 
existed when Harry got on his train--somehow it never entered the 
mind of him or any of our heroes that this particular change was 
worth making. Nor is anyone saying it needs to in the epilogue.

The short answer I guess being: If she didn't write House Unity, why 
would I think she wrote House Unity?

Carol:
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:
I have no specific desire for Harry and Draco's sons one way or the 
other in the epilogue, but Albus and Scorpius being already friends 
before Hogwarts certainly is not "unrealistic" at all. 


> 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? 

Magpie:
Yes, it was subjective. That's why I wrote IMO at the end of it, 
because I was describing my own reaction. And I wasn't expecting 
anything specific--certainly not anything like Mrs. Weasley's defeat 
of Bellatrix, whatever that would mean. I simply reacted to to the 
storyline I got and found it underwhelming, dramatic as your own 
passionate thank-yous to Harry and JKR might be.

> 
> 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? 

Magpie:
Of course I see how subjective this judgment is. If she'd written 
something that actually interested me I'd be interested. It didn't 
have to be House Unity, it just obviously wasn't this. It's not like 
I said that because I didn't find it interesting you didn't either. 

Carol:> 
> 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"? 

Magpie:
I don't feel like coming up with some phantom DH. As others have 
said, I actually DIDN'T have the book pre-written in my head and I'm 
criticizing JKR's book because it didn't match up to it. I didn't 
want to write the book, I just wanted to like it. The only thing I 
know about the book that "might have been" was that I found it a 
satisfying end to the stuff that came before. How that was done was 
up to JKR. I don't think the problem is all me with unreasonable 
demands or "interrogating the text from the wrong perspective" as 
Anne Rice would say.


> 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

Magpie:
No, that's not what it means. It's not about me being more interested 
in the other thing, it's about what I'm given being uninteresting 
enough for me to be thinking about other things. The misstep is in 
not holding my interest, not in my having other interests besides the 
one the book's about. I'm perfectly capable of being interested in 
other things while also finding the thing I'm reading interesting. If 
my attention's wandering while I'm reading it's not working for me. 


> Carol:
> I don't know of a single person who claims that "House unity 
actually
> did happen brilliantly." 

Magpie:
It's totally on its way in 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. 

Magpie:
Yes, there was always this chance. It just wasn't necessary for a 
happy ending. Too bad the one Slytherin who could be emulated because 
he was maybe Sorted to early is gone (and that his behavior everybody 
mostly saw was almost uniformly awful while he was alive, so that 
emulating him made Slytherins worse). 


> 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.

Magpie:
And that doesn't make it criticism? Criticism is subjective. That 
doesn't make it less valid, imo. Isn't talking about what the author 
chose to say talking about the book? Would it be equally worthless if 
somebody talked about the themes JKR chose to present in a way that 
was positive? I think saying "I didn't like what the author had to 
say" is perfectly valid criticism of a work. I'm sure some authors 
are compared to others in terms of what they have to say, this being 
part of the author's craft.
 
> 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. 

Magpie:
Well, in this thread we're doing that because it's about 
disappointment. I assume other places we are talking about what's in 
the book. I'm not talking about these things because it doesn't seem 
like bringing in lists of my complaints onto the list is something 
people really want to read, and frankly they're not things I have any 
interest in writing at the moment either. 

Carol:
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? 

Magpie:
It's not difficult at all. It's a mailing list where anybody can 
start a thread about anything. Start one about something else. Pre-DH 
it seemed like the problem was that people wanted to talk about other 
stuff and it kept coming back to Snape. I'm sure that was frustrating 
for people uninterested in Snape, but the list followed the line of 
what people were most vocal about. This is what people are most vocal 
about in DH. That seems like what really would make it difficult. 
People only want to talk about what they want to talk about.

-m