Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 180234


> Eggplant, who is nonplussed at the intense rage over some tiny
> inconsistencies even if most of them were real (they're not) and
> thinks there must be something more at work here; and who has a hunch
> that the anger would be a bit less if JKR had just said Dumbledore was
> straight.
>

Montavilla47:

Well, count me in as one of those people who was disappointed by
DH, and not because Dumbledore later turned out to be gay.

Actually, that's one of the post-book revelations that made me 
somewhat happy.  I like positive images of gay people and, even
with his manipulations, I think that Dumbledore is basically 
positive--whether he killed people or not. :)

My experience was close to Muscatel's.  I loved the books, especially
after HBP.  I bought three copies.  I sat down and worried only that I'd
read it too quickly.

My initial reaction was a puzzled disappointment.  There were parts 
that I liked, but far too many parts that struck me as... not as good
as I'd hoped.  The wedding, the horcux non-hunt (otherwise known
as the camping trip), and the ending.  Stuff we'd been waiting for 
for seven books, such as Ron and Hermione being official, fell 
flat for me (partly because I thought they were *already* together
and didn't need them to start making out at the eleventh hour).

The big thing I "wanted" to happen, happened.  I was very much
invested in Snape being Dumbledore's man, having spent two years
arguing about that prediction on another forum.  I got it.  I should
be ecstatic.   I was also pretty sure that Snape would die, so that 
didn't disappoint me.  And I was happy that he didn't die throwing
himself between Voldemort and Harry (as some had predicted) 
because that seemed too predictable.  

So, why wasn't I happier?  Like Carol, I think it was the inconsistancies
that got to me.  In the first chapter we're told that dark magic is bad
and Dumbledore is too "noble" to use them.  This idea about the 
essential evil of dark magic was repeated throughout the series.  And
then, in DH, the darkness of dark magic proved to be not just relative, 
but irrelevant.  This was an inconsistency in the moral universe that
had been set up.

There were inconsistencies in character, as well.  Ron and Hermoine's
snogfest was triggered by Ron expressing concern about House Elves.
But Ron had consistently been kind to elves.  So, how could his
concern be considered a turnabout strong enough to make Hermione
so passionate?  How was I supposed to view Ron confronted with the
spectre of Harry and Hermione kissing when there had been no 
set-up for that kind of jealousy on his part?  (I mean, if it was 
Hermione and Viktor kissing, it might have made sense.)

The other things that jumped out at me were what I thought of
as "movie" moments (such as Harry's quip at using the Crucio, and
Molly's "Get away from her, you BITCH!" line).  I find those kind
of moments great the first time you see them in a film and cheesy
the second time.  To see them in a book is really disappointing.

(Coincidently, I was very dismayed to see the cliched entrance
of Sirius in the film version of OotP.  "Get away from my Grandson!"
followed by the obligatory punch in the nose.  Yeesh.)

There was also the weird non-story of Draco and the Slytherins.  
It seemed like Dumbledore had risked so much for Draco--
Katie and Ron's lives for starters--and so there was a lot at 
stake for me as a reader in what Draco did.  And he did...
nothing.  His strongest contribution for the good was to 
not-identify Harry.  Not that it mattered, because Bellatrix
recognized Hermione.  So, his strongest good action 
accomplished exactly nothing.

And then there are the Slytherins who apparently didn't
run away from Hogwarts (even though they all left),
apparently didn't join up with Voldemort (although he said
that they did), and apparently all returned with 
reinforcements (although they weren't actually seen
returning).  The Slytherins, who turned out not good nor
bad, nor absent nor present, nor fish nor fowl.  But
balding.  Definitely balding.

Montavilla47