Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Discuss and Grade

[Lapis Exilis]

As much as I admire Rowling's charming world building, she really does fall down on a theory of magic, seriously undercutting any chance the HP universe has to be compelling beyond mild entertainment.

Not sure I follow....... are you saying that the lack of a more intricate, self-consistent, logical system of magic greatly affected your ability to the enjoy the books or am I misunderstanding what your getting at?

Oh, I enjoy the books, but only as light entertainment. Many HP fans make much of the depth of the books, how they got darker as they progressed, character development, etc, but I find those to be weak arguments and the books to be a confection at most. Rowling introduces new magical rules as it suits the plot of the current book and so has numerous items which should but do not apply to the plots of earlier books. This doesn't particularly bother me because I never expected HP to be more than a beach read. But I can see where it had the potential to be a more compelling fictional universe and I think she sort of tries for that towards the end, but falls far short because there's too much she hadn't decided about the universe on the front end. This is a problem for a lot of serial entertainment, but it's a pretty basic rule that if you are going to invent a universe with extra physics (as would be required for magic) then it's a good idea to know how those physics work. She plainly doesn't know that and throws in magical laws as it suits - which does lead to a very confusing bit of business to explain how Harry defeats Voldemort.

A more serious criticism I might have of that ending would be that Harry really does not have a character arc throughout the series. He does not learn himself and magic and grow to be as powerful as Voldemort. He doesn't learn and grow enough to outsmart a Voldemort still far more powerful than he is himself. Still as much a little boy as he was in the first book, he stands up to Voldemort, just as he did at the end of Sorcerer's Stone, and more or less accidentally defeats Voldemort by having the author work the rules of the universe out around him so that he can. That's what I mean by saying the books miss really creating a compelling story and universe. The universe and the plots work out far too much via authorial deus ex machina instead of logical self-consistency. So, I can enjoy them for their charm, but I don't consider them worth much beyond that.

 

[label]

But I can see where it had the potential to be a more compelling fictional universe and I think she sort of tries for that towards the end, but falls far short because there's too much she hadn't decided about the universe on the front end.

Yeah, I can definitely see where your coming from. I had similar issues with the Dark Tower series with Stephen King and even larger issues with Lost which I believe both suffered from this very problem. (Especially Lost)

With Harry Potter I guess I went into the series thinking it was targeting Young Adults and so like you, I didn't have high expectations when I started. However, as I continued through the series and the tone got a little darker and her "world building" skills were allowed to be explored a bit, I guess I just left the critical thinking part of my mind in neutral for the most part and enjoyed the story and the world Rowling created.

With the Dark Tower series, King actually went back and reworked the first book so that it would fit better with where he ended up taking the series. I can forgive King because as he points out, he didn't know how things were going to turn out and it was a series that unfolded over many years in real life.

Still, series like Bab 5 where the ending and details involved in making that ending happen are pretty well thought out ahead of time are more the exception than the rule so retcons and other dues ex machina's like what you point out in Harry Potter are pretty much what I'm used to an any lengthy series.

See, the problem isn't the books, your standards are just too high.

A more serious criticism I might have of that ending would be that Harry really does not have a character arc throughout the series. He does not learn himself and magic and grow to be as powerful as Voldemort. He doesn't learn and grow enough to outsmart a Voldemort still far more powerful than he is himself. Still as much a little boy as he was in the first book, he stands up to Voldemort, just as he did at the end of Sorcerer's Stone, and more or less accidentally defeats Voldemort by having the author work the rules of the universe out around him so that he can.

Excellent point. And one that's true for almost all of her characters. While your right that Harry doesn't significantly grow through the seven books, I'd say that's even more true for Ron and Hermione. At least Harry grows a bit from being a low-self esteem boy under the stairs to something a bit more courageous. Hermione remains almost exactly the same book smart, chip-on-her shoulder girl she always was and Ron is the bit simpler, not quite as quick but very loyal friend.

 

[Gaith]

A more serious criticism I might have of that ending would be that Harry really does not have a character arc throughout the series. He does not learn himself and magic and grow to be as powerful as Voldemort. He doesn't learn and grow enough to outsmart a Voldemort still far more powerful than he is himself. Still as much a little boy as he was in the first book, he stands up to Voldemort, just as he did at the end of Sorcerer's Stone, and more or less accidentally defeats Voldemort by having the author work the rules of the universe out around him so that he can.

Excellent point. And one that's true for almost all of her characters. While your right that Harry doesn't significantly grow through the seven books, I'd say that's even more true for Ron and Hermione. At least Harry grows a bit from being a low-self esteem boy under the stairs to something a bit more courageous. Hermione remains almost exactly the same book smart, chip-on-her shoulder girl she always was and Ron is the bit simpler, not quite as quick but very loyal friend.

Very true, but at least Hermione and that dude who should've died at the end of Year 5, to be replaced by Neville, are doers. As FerretBrain so memorably explains, Harry is Rowling's favorite because things mainly just happen to him.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

See, the problem isn't the books, your standards are just too high.

But they're not really. I accept the books for what they are and enjoy them as such. I will jump into a discussion to give an honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses when people try to treat them as if they are more than they are, which some folks take pretty personally - but I don't see what's wrong wtih saying that you really love something that's charming and fun and not deep at all. There are many books, works of art, plays, movies, etc that I love for exactly those reasons. Not everything has to be deep to be great, and HP is great in its way.

 

[label]

I don't see what's wrong wtih saying that you really love something that's charming and fun and not deep at all. There are many books, works of art, plays, movies, etc that I love for exactly those reasons. Not everything has to be deep to be great, and HP is great in its way.

There's nothing wrong at all with that. I was just giving you some good natured ribbing about correctly pointing out some flaws in a series a lot of people consider on par with Lord of the Rings (or better).

Personally, I just finished the Hunger Games trilogy and while I really enjoyed the story for the most part, I certainly noticed some pretty glaring problems in the book when I read them. Half the characters are little more than 1 dimensional place holders so that we can examine what the main characters feelings towards them might be. Parts of the narrative were choppy and the characters actions contrived and completely out of place in the context they are taken. Still, doesn't mean I enjoyed the trilogy any less. (Well, in this case, perhaps slightly less. )

I don't have any problems at all with honest, objective criticisms and I certainly don't get offended if someone has issues with a book when I may not share those issue.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I don't see what's wrong wtih saying that you really love something that's charming and fun and not deep at all. There are many books, works of art, plays, movies, etc that I love for exactly those reasons. Not everything has to be deep to be great, and HP is great in its way.

There's nothing wrong at all with that. I was just giving you some good natured ribbing about correctly pointing out some flaws in a series a lot of people consider on par with Lord of the Rings (or better).

I followed you - I was just commenting on how often people (not you) seem to feel the need to imbue their favorite story with depth, whether it's there or not. My favorite book in the world is Watership Down, also a young adult book, also lacking in any deep themes beyond the power of love and loyalty - and while Hazel does actually have a bit of a character arc, it's not much of one. Still, I get chills and cry every time I read it. It affects me deeply even if it's not deep. Sometimes a well told story is even better than a really good story.

 

[suarezguy]

I disliked in both the book and film how Harry was repeatedly reluctant to accept help even when he really needed it, the people really wanted him to take it and he had many experiences to know that it was beneficial and they would dislike him trying to refuse it.

 

[cultcross]

But, as noted many times before, the whole disarming rule is stupid and a massive retcon (what happened to the rule about other people's wands not working as well for you as your own? Wouldn't that have been the first of thousands of good times to mention the disarming rule before Year 7?).

Well the book makes it perfectly clear that these aspects of wand lore are something Voldemort, the 'most powerful dark wizard ever' needed two renowned wand experts to understand and still he got it wrong. It's not as if these things are in Hogwarts: A History or taught in Charms class. And for regular wands, the effect is only that another wizard's wand doesn't work as well for you - something that has definitely been mentioned before, right back to the first Diagon Alley scene - 'the wand chooses the wizard'. There has always been an established connection between wizard and wand. DH simply takes this a step further with the Elder Wand; as it is supposedly fashioned by Death himself, it is not surprising that it responds very positively to killing and defeat.

 

[flemm]

Well the book makes it perfectly clear that these aspects of wand lore are something Voldemort, the 'most powerful dark wizard ever' needed two renowned wand experts to understand and still he got it wrong. It's not as if these things are in Hogwarts: A History or taught in Charms class. And for regular wands, the effect is only that another wizard's wand doesn't work as well for you - something that has definitely been mentioned before, right back to the first Diagon Alley scene - 'the wand chooses the wizard'. There has always been an established connection between wizard and wand. DH simply takes this a step further with the Elder Wand; as it is supposedly fashioned by Death himself, it is not surprising that it responds very positively to killing and defeat.

That's all well and good, but the underlying issue is not really whether or not its a retcon but whether it can be understood as anything other than an elaborate plot contrivance that allows Harry to defeat Voldemort.

I don't think fantasy has to "make sense" or be based in some kind of coherent "theory of magic" (or whatever), but it does have to have some kind of decipherable meaning that we can relate to actual experience back here in reality. Not necessarily a sophisticated or original one, fantasy doesn't have to have anything original or sophisticated to say, but at its core there should be some connection to reality.

An example would be the behavior of the One Ring in the LotR. It's not based on a "theory of magic" but it is a vivid and coherent expression of the corrupting influence of power. Whereas the wand stuff in Harry Potter doesn't seem to have any deeper thematic resonance other than wands do this because wands have to do this for Harry to defeat Voldemort.

Given everything else we see in the later HP novels, it seems a simpler explanation would have been that Voldemort can't wield the wand of death because he has not mastered death while Harry has, but instead there is all this extra stuff about who beat whom and so on.

In passing, I think all the "master of death" material has its own problems, but why was it necessary to add the additional contrivance of "wand ownership"? One of the reasons I think #7 is so much harder to enjoy than the earlier books is that there are simply too many plot devices and macguffin-like objects floating around: horcruxes, hallows, wands, it's a mess.

It's partly that all these powerful and important plot-developing objects and their properties are introduced so late in the game. It would be like Aragorn discovering in the Return of the King that there is an "Amulet of Power" or something that will allow him to defeat Sauron. If a make-believe object of some kind is going to drive the plot and its resolution, it makes sense to introduce it early, explain how it works, and then stick to that explanation until the end of the story.

It's very important for example, that Frodo can't actually summon the willpower to throw the ring into the fire on Mount Doom. This potential problem has been latent since the beginning, when he can't throw the ring into the fireplace back in the Shire.

If you have to have your hero, Harry, explain to Voldemort what is happening during the climactic duel of the entire series, in order for anybody to understand what is going on, including the reader, then there is a bit of a structural problem with your narrative. That is basically what happens at the end of the DH.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Well the book makes it perfectly clear that these aspects of wand lore are something Voldemort, the 'most powerful dark wizard ever' needed two renowned wand experts to understand and still he got it wrong. It's not as if these things are in Hogwarts: A History or taught in Charms class. And for regular wands, the effect is only that another wizard's wand doesn't work as well for you - something that has definitely been mentioned before, right back to the first Diagon Alley scene - 'the wand chooses the wizard'. There has always been an established connection between wizard and wand. DH simply takes this a step further with the Elder Wand; as it is supposedly fashioned by Death himself, it is not surprising that it responds very positively to killing and defeat.

That's all well and good, but the underlying issue is not really whether or not its a retcon but whether it can be understood as anything other than an elaborate plot contrivance that allows Harry to defeat Voldemort.

I don't think fantasy has to "make sense" or be based in some kind of coherent "theory of magic" (or whatever), but it does have to have some kind of decipherable meaning that we can relate to actual experience back here in reality. Not necessarily a sophisticated or original one, fantasy doesn't have to have anything original or sophisticated to say, but at its core there should be some connection to reality.

An example would be the behavior of the One Ring in the LotR. It's not based on a "theory of magic" but it is a vivid and coherent expression of the corrupting influence of power. Whereas the wand stuff in Harry Potter doesn't seem to have any deeper thematic resonance other than wands do this because wands have to do this for Harry to defeat Voldemort.

Given everything else we see in the later HP novels, it seems a simpler explanation would have been that Voldemort can't wield the wand of death because he has not mastered death while Harry has, but instead there is all this extra stuff about who beat whom and so on.

In passing, I think all the "master of death" material has its own problems, but why was it necessary to add the additional contrivance of "wand ownership"? One of the reasons I think #7 is so much harder to enjoy than the earlier books is that there are simply too many plot devices and macguffin-like objects floating around: horcruxes, hallows, wands, it's a mess.

It's partly that all these powerful and important plot-developing objects and their properties are introduced so late in the game. It would be like Aragorn discovering in the Return of the King that there is an "Amulet of Power" or something that will allow him to defeat Sauron. If a make-believe object of some kind is going to drive the plot and its resolution, it makes sense to introduce it early, explain how it works, and then stick to that explanation until the end of the story.

It's very important for example, that Frodo can't actually summon the willpower to throw the ring into the fire on Mount Doom. This potential problem has been latent since the beginning, when he can't throw the ring into the fireplace back in the Shire.

If you have to have your hero, Harry, explain to Voldemort what is happening during the climactic duel of the entire series, in order for anybody to understand what is going on, including the reader, then there is a bit of a structural problem with your narrative. That is basically what happens at the end of the DH.

Not only that, but then the author has to bring Dumbledore back from the dead to explain it further to Harry. It gets a litte tedious.

I like your point about the non-necessity of a theory of magic in LotR - we certainly never understand how wizards' power works in that tale, but, as you say, the Ring and how it works is clear and consistent from start to finish - and the ultimate finish is completely decreed by the simple rules the Ring and its power follows. There's no sense of authorial sleight of hand in the ending. I once read that the sign of a good story is that the ending is entirely in question until it happens, and then it seems completely inevitable - that there was simply no other way for things to end. LotR works that way beautifully. HP is almost the opposite. I knew from halfway through Book One how things were going to end, but the specific ending did not seem at all the only way things could have unfolded.

 

[CaptainCanada]

If you have to have your hero, Harry, explain to Voldemort what is happening during the climactic duel of the entire series, in order for anybody to understand what is going on, including the reader, then there is a bit of a structural problem with your narrative.

I don't see the issue: Harry lays out for Voldemort the full extent of his failure and how trapped he is, and then tells him the only way out is to experience remorse. He refuses to do this, and thus is destroyed. Dramatically speaking, it's Harry finally putting all the pieces together for everyone else, much as Sherlock Holmes always does at the climax of one of his mysteries.

 

[Gaith]

^ Exactly - if someone else told Sherlock the whole plot right before he then "solved" it!


But no, it still sucked on toast, because it was obvious that Voldy was a plot device for Eeeevil, not an actual character.

 

[Sindatur]

Not only that, but then the author has to bring Dumbledore back from the dead to explain it further to Harry. It gets a litte tedious.

Dumbledore wasn't brought back from the Dead?

I understand why you object to when some stuff was revealed, but, in many interviews she went into detail about the notes that keeps, and charts and so, because she did have a rule book for everything, and family trees, history books, etc. And she even commented at least once how important it was to the Plotting to know all the twists and answers in advance. Now, I believe this was before Book 6 was released, and maybe even before Book 4, but, she claimed from early on to have it all planned out in advance (of course details hcange, but, generally not broad swaths. And of course, you can say she lied, or it may have been true then....)

Anyways, on Topic of the movie itself, I enjoyed it. Movie 4 and 5 suffered from incoherent opening 20-30 minutes, flipping by at rocket speed, bypassing many things, and were hard to follow for those of us who read the book. I believe both of them could've been much better movies, if given another 15-30 minutes.

This one, chose the perfect place to split the book, the stuff that was changed, generally made for a better movie. My only complaint is the lack of an opening Dursley scene. The "camping" scenes didn't slog along as they did in the book. I hope for a strong second movie.

 

[Silvercrest]

Not only that, but then the author has to bring Dumbledore back from the dead to explain it further to Harry. It gets a litte tedious.

Dumbledore wasn't brought back from the Dead?

He was brought back just enough to start lecturing Harry again.

If you have to have your hero, Harry, explain to Voldemort what is happening during the climactic duel of the entire series, in order for anybody to understand what is going on, including the reader, then there is a bit of a structural problem with your narrative.

Dramatically speaking, it's Harry finally putting all the pieces together for everyone else, much as Sherlock Holmes always does at the climax of one of his mysteries.

It would have been better if Harry was explaining it all to Hermione instead of Voldemort. At least then he could break character and say, "It's elementary, my dear Watson!"

 

[flemm]

I don't see the issue: Harry lays out for Voldemort the full extent of his failure and how trapped he is, and then tells him the only way out is to experience remorse. He refuses to do this, and thus is destroyed. Dramatically speaking, it's Harry finally putting all the pieces together for everyone else, much as Sherlock Holmes always does at the climax of one of his mysteries.

You bring up a couple of points, one being that (imo) the DH draws heavily on what appears to be a lot of poorly digested Christian theology, as opposed to the Narnia books, for example, which draw on Christian theology in a coherent manner because the stories were consciously constructed with that in mind.

Repenting is the only way to heal one's damaged soul, apparently. Well thanks, Harry. Anyway, leaving these issues aside, I don't think the analogy of a "whodunnit" is an especially appropriate one.

First and foremost, let's recognize that a lot of "whodunnit" stories and procedural-type stories are not memorable or meaningful at all, partly because they rely on fooling the reader/viewer and providing a bunch of more or less clumsy exposition at the end. Sherlock Holmes is a famous character, but how many of the plots of the original stories does anyone remember? It's the character that is memorable in this case. That's pretty common for this type of story.

There are some famous whodunnit plots, certainly. Mostly, that I can recall, this happens when an author has come up with an especially clever puzzle (Murder on the Orient Express), but anyway the emphasis is on the cleverness of the puzzle, with none of the metaphysical resonance that fantasy often has and that HP apparently aspires to have, since it is teaching us about repenting and death 'n' stuff.

In passing, a lot of the Holmes stories, as I recall, are actually pretty light on the long-winded explanation at the end and read more like adventure stories. I think the "let's all gather round to hear the explanation and reveal the guilty party" trope is something that became more common later on and naturally most of those plots are pretty forgettable.

Then there is the fact that the HP story relies on a lot of magic, which is not normally the case in a "whodunnit" for the obvious reason that magic makes no sense, so that's a pretty unsatisfactory explanation for the end of a mystery story.

To put it another way, in a whodunnit, we don't need the rules explained to us early on, because the "rules" are the rules of everyday life, so we intuitively understand them. In a fantasy story, we need to learn how the magic works fairly early on so we can focus on what the story means and how it resonates with us emotionally.

I find that there's way too much explanation and exposition at the end of the DH, not only regarding how events transpired but regarding fundamental aspects of how magic is apparently supposed to work in the HP universe. We should understand intuitively how it works by this time.

 

[Sindatur]

Not only that, but then the author has to bring Dumbledore back from the dead to explain it further to Harry. It gets a litte tedious.

Dumbledore wasn't brought back from the Dead?

He was brought back just enough to start lecturing Harry again.

If you have to have your hero, Harry, explain to Voldemort what is happening during the climactic duel of the entire series, in order for anybody to understand what is going on, including the reader, then there is a bit of a structural problem with your narrative.

Dramatically speaking, it's Harry finally putting all the pieces together for everyone else, much as Sherlock Holmes always does at the climax of one of his mysteries.

It would have been better if Harry was explaining it all to Hermione instead of Voldemort. At least then he could break character and say, "It's elementary, my dear Watson!"

No, Harry died (and was brought back to life by the Hallow), Dumbledore was still in Deadsville. Harry visited Dumbledore, not the other way around

 

[Silvercrest]

You're being too technical. Dumbledore returned to the book because Rowling had to find a way to fit in more exposition. This is clumsy no matter how you rationalize it.

 

[flemm]

You're being too technical. Dumbledore returned to the book because Rowling had to find a way to fit in more exposition. This is clumsy no matter how you rationalize it.

Moreover, even with all the exposition and explanation, I'm not sure it all adds up. It's actually quite difficult to explain what is supposed to have transpired exactly even with the author going to such lengths to explain it all. We have seen a bit of that already in this thread. That is even before we get to the question of whether any of it resonates in a meaningful way with reality or engages us on an emotional level.

 

[Sindatur]

You're being too technical. Dumbledore returned to the book because Rowling had to find a way to fit in more exposition. This is clumsy no matter how you rationalize it.

But, if that's all it was about, there's a Dumbledore Portrait in Hogwarts, Neville could've grabbed it or Snape could've planted it, or there could've been more in the willed items, a memory could've been hidden in the Snitch, the De-luminator or anywhere else, even Hedwig's cage (To show growth from the mirror let-down). Exposition Info Dumps are always clumsy, they should always try to be avoided

 

[flemm]

Exposition Info Dumps are always clumsy, they should always try to be avoided

No doubt, but they are necessary to an extent in any story, especially in an imaginary world that the reader is initially unfamiliar with. I think they are more distracting towards the end of a story like this than towards the beginning. I'm going to compare again with the LotR, which is not really fair to Rowling, and certainly the HP books are very entertaining in their own right, but anyway Tolkien is any easy reference in the same genre because it is so well known.

Basically, in Fellowship there is a substantial info dump right at the beginning when Gandalf gives Frodo some backstory about the ring. It's kind of incomplete and you're left wanting more, but then Gandalf disappears and his absence becomes the driving force for the first series of adventures. Enough information is given to immerse you in the story, but not too much, so it is not overwhelming and the sense of mystery remains.

Then, after a series of adventures culminating in the Hobbits' arrival at Rivendell, you and the characters get to relax a bit and there is another big info dump given at the Council of Elrond. This is the core exposition scene of the trilogy. It's here that you learn the full scope of what is transpiring. It's worth noting that it happens early on, but not right away. Too early, and the quantity of information would be off-putting; too late, and it starts to feel like the author is making things up whenever it is convenient to do so.

Then the fellowship sets out, and from that point forward there's a little exposition here or there to cover specific places, people or events, such as Moria, Lorien, the Rohirrim, and so on, but basically once the fellowship sets out you know everything you need to know about the story that has been set in motion. Even details like Mount Doom, Minas Tirith and Mordor, that we don't actually encounter until much later on, have already been referenced, often repeatedly.

So, exposition can be handled more or less elegantly, and I feel that the DH is rather awkward in this respect.