What did people think of the Deathly Hallows? (spoilers)

[The Fatman]

NOTHING Harry does helps his own cause, for example. Harry is never allowed to be proactive. He gets held back time and time again until someone or something ELSE shows up to give him the means to succeed.

You know who that sounds like?

Indiana Jones in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (one of the greatest films in existence).

The entire movie is one failure after another for him. He gets the idol stolen from him at the start. He loses the girl, and when he finds her, can't even rescue her. As soon as he finds the ark, it's taken from him. He gets it back briefly only to have it stolen again, along with the girl. He gets the upper hand on the Nazis, only to surrender in about one minute. Finally, he wins by being tied up and closing his eyes.

What a loser, right?

Well, says your analysis, anyway. I consider it a brilliant film and think you're a bit daft for suggesting that it uses a flawed formula.

It's not the same thing at all.

Indy is a smart, educated, adventurer with many skills and abilities to fall back upon, plus years of experience to draw upon.

Harry is a clueless kid whom Rowling KEEPS clueless by having those in charge of his life do little or nothing to prepare him for the role he has to play in the story. Moreover, their decisions often actively HINDER Harry in terms of his development. Harry is left to get by on luck and "fate", not any skill or attribute he posesses or develops by his own efforts.

For the most part, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about the Potter series. I've come away from multiple re-reads with nothing but appreciation for the depth of the characters and their motivations.

In the first 5 books, I'll agree with you somewhat. However, Dumbledore admits in OotP that he was doing it and that he was wrong for doing so! That's the whole emotional point of the "showdown" in DD's office, where the old man blames himself for Sirius' death. Following that, DD does work with Harry directly, and the OotP treats Harry as a full grown wizard, doing everything in their power to prepare Harry for what must be done.

Beyond that, I think Rowling went above and beyond throughout all seven books to show Harry as an exceptionally competant wizard for his age. They repeatedly show from GOF on that Harry knows more defensive magic and has superior Defense Against the Dark Arts skills than most 7th year students. I don't think it's at all a matter of being "kept clueless" as opposed to Harry actually being a child!

As to the point you are making in your other posts about writer ex machina... doesn't that actually describe all fictional works? Not trying to be difficult, but... doesn't all literature go where the author wants it to? I do get the point you're actually trying to make, that you would have liked things to be more character driven as opposed to plot driven, but I have two counter arguments for that:

1) I disagree pretty much wholesale with the notion that this is a bad example of plot-driven fiction. Almost nothing was introduced that wasn't foreshadowed in some capacity. One could argue that the Deathly Hallows themselves were a piece of deus ex machina that weren't alluded to earlier, but even that isn't entirely true. As early as the first book, people knew there was more to the Invisibility Cloak than we were being told (i.e. if Dumbledore knows of other ways of being invisible, why did he have James invisibility cloak in the first place?). Also, the Hallows turned out to be a red herring, with only the Wand being truly important to the ending...and wand lore coming into play was hinted at in the GoF duel! We knew they couldn't duel again with their own wands.

In my opinion, that's one of the more elegant things about the series. Having Harry being an outsider to the world of Magic, we learn things as Harry does. He's our window into the world. Most of the things that were "dropped on us" suddenly can very rationally be explained that there was no way someone from a non-magical family would know it, and it never had a reason to come up in casual conversation before for Harry (and by extension, us) to know about it.

2) A very large amount of excellent fiction is plot-driven, as opposed to character-driven. Hell, I'll just reference Raiders of the Lost Ark since Small White Car already brought that up. Yes, Indy is established early as being a confident, competant explorer... but Fate and Luck are what drives the plot of the entire film! Marion just happens to still have the exact medallion Indy needs; The German just happens to burn a perfect facsimile of said medallion on his hand; Indy just happens to have a friend whos the best digger in Cairo, et cetera.

I am OK with you just not liking the HP series, that's certainly your prerogative. IMHO, however, your arguments as to it being poorly written don't hold any water.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

JK dropped the ball with the set up of some big issues namely the magical creatures. I mean seriously, the dragons? The giants? the werewolves? where were they?

 

[LaxScrutiny]

In the first 5 books, I'll agree with you somewhat. However, Dumbledore admits in OotP that he was doing it and that he was wrong for doing so! That's the whole emotional point of the "showdown" in DD's office, where the old man blames himself for Sirius' death. Following that, DD does work with Harry directly, and the OotP treats Harry as a full grown wizard, doing everything in their power to prepare Harry for what must be done.

Well, here is the thing about that conversation where he admits what he was doing. He was lieing.

He kept Harry in ignorance because he cared and wanted him to have a "normal" life, which is a manipulative answer, avoiding explaining why he let him be abused for 10 years by the Dursleys. Now, I'm not saying Harry may not have needed the magical protection. I'm saying Dumbledore had the moral responsibility to check in on Harry and see that he was being well fed and given an actual bedroom. Dumbledore did nothing of the sort, but offers no reason.

Then Dumbledore says he will finally tell Harry "everything"... except he doesn't. Now, there may be reasons why he doesn't tell him about Snape, or Horcruxes, etc, but the fact is, by not telling him, Dumbledore is continuing to manipulate him. Harry is never given the actual choice to proceed or not. Dumbledore carefully manages Harry's emotions and reactions to ensure he fighting against Voldy.

In HBP Dumbledore is on the one hand revealing tons to Harry, but at the same time keeping him completely in the dark, to manipulate and control events. It's fine to justify this as "Well it had to be done becaue of ...." but the fact is, he isn't being honest and open with Harry, Harry is being manipulated into doing what Dumbledore wants, these aren't Harry's choices, they are Dumbledore's.

When I look back at that conversation in DD's office after Sirius' death, that is when I really see Dumbledore as a fraud that is just out to manipulate everyone around him. Now, he is more complex than that, and he has his points, but this is his worst hour, this conversation is where he lieing and deceiving and manipulating Harry the most. In the end we agree with him because it was for a "just cause", "for the greater good", but he certainly isn't allowing Harry the full right to make his own informed decisions.

 

[Verse]

I didn't like it. To me the good thing about Harry Potter was coming back each year, learning some more and creating new questions. Ending this story ruined it for me and although she couldn't have just not finished it I would have preferred that.

 

[The Fatman]

In the first 5 books, I'll agree with you somewhat. However, Dumbledore admits in OotP that he was doing it and that he was wrong for doing so! That's the whole emotional point of the "showdown" in DD's office, where the old man blames himself for Sirius' death. Following that, DD does work with Harry directly, and the OotP treats Harry as a full grown wizard, doing everything in their power to prepare Harry for what must be done.

Well, here is the thing about that conversation where he admits what he was doing. He was lieing.

He kept Harry in ignorance because he cared and wanted him to have a "normal" life, which is a manipulative answer, avoiding explaining why he let him be abused for 10 years by the Dursleys. Now, I'm not saying Harry may not have needed the magical protection. I'm saying Dumbledore had the moral responsibility to check in on Harry and see that he was being well fed and given an actual bedroom. Dumbledore did nothing of the sort, but offers no reason.

Then Dumbledore says he will finally tell Harry "everything"... except he doesn't. Now, there may be reasons why he doesn't tell him about Snape, or Horcruxes, etc, but the fact is, by not telling him, Dumbledore is continuing to manipulate him. Harry is never given the actual choice to proceed or not. Dumbledore carefully manages Harry's emotions and reactions to ensure he fighting against Voldy.

In HBP Dumbledore is on the one hand revealing tons to Harry, but at the same time keeping him completely in the dark, to manipulate and control events. It's fine to justify this as "Well it had to be done becaue of ...." but the fact is, he isn't being honest and open with Harry, Harry is being manipulated into doing what Dumbledore wants, these aren't Harry's choices, they are Dumbledore's.

When I look back at that conversation in DD's office after Sirius' death, that is when I really see Dumbledore as a fraud that is just out to manipulate everyone around him. Now, he is more complex than that, and he has his points, but this is his worst hour, this conversation is where he lieing and deceiving and manipulating Harry the most. In the end we agree with him because it was for a "just cause", "for the greater good", but he certainly isn't allowing Harry the full right to make his own informed decisions.

You're right, to a large degree, although I can argue certain points you've made. At the time, DD wasn't sure about the Horcruxes, so why mention those just yet? With Snape, DD promised he would never reveal the slimy prick had any humanity in him. I will agree it seems cruel to let Harry live as he did with the Dursleys. But, if every time Harry was unhappy, his kindly old "uncle" Albus came around and straightened everything out, would Harry have had the inner stregth to face what he had to? Might Harry have turned into a spoiled little prat (Make me a pie or I'm going to call uncle Albus!)? I can make the case that DD very shrewdly weighed the risks of leaving Harry with the Dursleys against the alternatives...and found that despite how horrid the conditions were, they were perfect to make Harry into the man he needed him to be.

Ahh, but then haven't I just pretty much argued the point you were making? Yes I have... DD comes from the same long line of literary kindly old sages as Gandalf and especially Obi-Wan "certain point of view" Kenobi, who were every bit the shrewd master planner DD was.

However, my argument here is not that the series is poorly written because of it. The fact that we can have these debates about character and motivation again drives home that these books are anything but poorly written.

 

[Gojirob]

In the first 5 books, I'll agree with you somewhat. However, Dumbledore admits in OotP that he was doing it and that he was wrong for doing so! That's the whole emotional point of the "showdown" in DD's office, where the old man blames himself for Sirius' death. Following that, DD does work with Harry directly, and the OotP treats Harry as a full grown wizard, doing everything in their power to prepare Harry for what must be done.

Well, here is the thing about that conversation where he admits what he was doing. He was lieing.

He kept Harry in ignorance because he cared and wanted him to have a "normal" life, which is a manipulative answer, avoiding explaining why he let him be abused for 10 years by the Dursleys. Now, I'm not saying Harry may not have needed the magical protection. I'm saying Dumbledore had the moral responsibility to check in on Harry and see that he was being well fed and given an actual bedroom. Dumbledore did nothing of the sort, but offers no reason.

Then Dumbledore says he will finally tell Harry "everything"... except he doesn't. Now, there may be reasons why he doesn't tell him about Snape, or Horcruxes, etc, but the fact is, by not telling him, Dumbledore is continuing to manipulate him. Harry is never given the actual choice to proceed or not. Dumbledore carefully manages Harry's emotions and reactions to ensure he fighting against Voldy.

In HBP Dumbledore is on the one hand revealing tons to Harry, but at the same time keeping him completely in the dark, to manipulate and control events. It's fine to justify this as "Well it had to be done becaue of ...." but the fact is, he isn't being honest and open with Harry, Harry is being manipulated into doing what Dumbledore wants, these aren't Harry's choices, they are Dumbledore's.

When I look back at that conversation in DD's office after Sirius' death, that is when I really see Dumbledore as a fraud that is just out to manipulate everyone around him. Now, he is more complex than that, and he has his points, but this is his worst hour, this conversation is where he lieing and deceiving and manipulating Harry the most. In the end we agree with him because it was for a "just cause", "for the greater good", but he certainly isn't allowing Harry the full right to make his own informed decisions.

You're right, to a large degree, although I can argue certain points you've made. At the time, DD wasn't sure about the Horcruxes, so why mention those just yet? With Snape, DD promised he would never reveal the slimy prick had any humanity in him. I will agree it seems cruel to let Harry live as he did with the Dursleys. But, if every time Harry was unhappy, his kindly old "uncle" Albus came around and straightened everything out, would Harry have had the inner stregth to face what he had to? Might Harry have turned into a spoiled little prat (Make me a pie or I'm going to call uncle Albus!)? I can make the case that DD very shrewdly weighed the risks of leaving Harry with the Dursleys against the alternatives...and found that despite how horrid the conditions were, they were perfect to make Harry into the man he needed him to be.

Ahh, but then haven't I just pretty much argued the point you were making? Yes I have... DD comes from the same long line of literary kindly old sages as Gandalf and especially Obi-Wan "certain point of view" Kenobi, who were every bit the shrewd master planner DD was.

However, my argument here is not that the series is poorly written because of it. The fact that we can have these debates about character and motivation again drives home that these books are anything but poorly written.

Also, isn't one of the themes of 'The Hidden Prince' that the champion, ignorant of their heritage, is raised by sometimes less than ideal guardians, or ones who, with varying degrees of malice or misplaced concern, work them with manual labor and tedious tasks? The Dursleys were the most abusive example I can recall, but add to them in basic theme the Lars, Sir Hector, and even good examples like the Kents, Granpa Gohan, and even some Biblical examples. Hercules' labors were in part because his mother's husband knew he wasn't his, and told his own son to continue the pressure. One of the few champions who seemed to know it from the get-go was Gilgamesh, constantly tasked for his arrogance, even into the afterlife. The champion must be grounded, and one way to ground them in the modern sense is abusive foster parents.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

For the most part, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about the Potter series. I've come away from multiple re-reads with nothing but appreciation for the depth of the characters and their motivations.

We may very well have to. I give Rowling credit for world building and a writing STYLE that sucks you in and makes it a fun read. However, in book 7 (and subsequent rereading of the earlier books), her story logic I find to be strained under the best of circumstances.

Beyond that, I think Rowling went above and beyond throughout all seven books to show Harry as an exceptionally competant wizard for his age. They repeatedly show from GOF on that Harry knows more defensive magic and has superior Defense Against the Dark Arts skills than most 7th year students.

Not really, IMO. He's got a LOT of people "smoothing the way" for him. He can't figure out what to do about the dragon until "Moody" gives him advice. He can't decipher the egg until Cedric gives him advice. He can't figure out what to do about the lake until Nevil comes up with the answer and Dobby does the stealing of the gillyweed. His maze tests are a lot easier than they should be given the level the competition he's in. I was left with the unspoken impression that he was somehow "herded" along an easy path (probably by "Moody"), to make sure he got to the winners' cup.

As to the point you are making in your other posts about writer ex machina... doesn't that actually describe all fictional works? Not trying to be difficult, but... doesn't all literature go where the author wants it to?

On one level, you might have a point, but a GOOD author isn't as "in your face about it" as Rowling turns out to be.

1) I disagree pretty much wholesale with the notion that this is a bad example of plot-driven fiction. Almost nothing was introduced that wasn't foreshadowed in some capacity. One could argue that the Deathly Hallows themselves were a piece of deus ex machina that weren't alluded to earlier, but even that isn't entirely true. As early as the first book, people knew there was more to the Invisibility Cloak than we were being told (i.e. if Dumbledore knows of other ways of being invisible, why did he have James invisibility cloak in the first place?). Also, the Hallows turned out to be a red herring, with only the Wand being truly important to the ending...and wand lore coming into play was hinted at in the GoF duel! We knew they couldn't duel again with their own wands.

On the "macro plot" level, maybe. The devil is in the details. On the detail level, Rowling falls into a pattern: Harry has a problem. Harry beats his head against a wall trying to find an answer until someone else gives him the next piece of information (if not the answer outright). See my comments above about the Goblet of Fire (though I could cite other examples from the other books).

In my opinion, that's one of the more elegant things about the series. Having Harry being an outsider to the world of Magic, we learn things as Harry does. He's our window into the world. Most of the things that were "dropped on us" suddenly can very rationally be explained that there was no way someone from a non-magical family would know it, and it never had a reason to come up in casual conversation before for Harry (and by extension, us) to know about it.

A friend of mine whom I was debating this topic with said much the same thing.

But step back and look at the effect that has on plot logic: Harry is the Chosen One. Savior of the Wizarding World. DD should have been sparing no effort to give him as much training as possible going BEYOND the school cirriculum to make him ready to fill his appointed role.

Instead, DD and the other adults work consciously or otherwise to hold him back, to keep him from learning/knowing what he NEEDS to know to be the Chosen One.

DD the character (and Rowling the writer) use the Prophecy as a crutch. Harry wins becasue he is "destined" to win, not because of any skill or trait or attribute he himself posesses or is allowed to possess.

To me, that is shallow writing, and makes Harry less of a hero and more of a pawn of Fate.

2) A very large amount of excellent fiction is plot-driven, as opposed to character-driven. Hell, I'll just reference Raiders of the Lost Ark since Small White Car already brought that up. Yes, Indy is established early as being a confident, competant explorer... but Fate and Luck are what drives the plot of the entire film! Marion just happens to still have the exact medallion Indy needs; The German just happens to burn a perfect facsimile of said medallion on his hand; Indy just happens to have a friend whos the best digger in Cairo, et cetera.

Again, on one level you have a point. The difference is that in Indy's case, he has to demonstrate his OWN skills and attributes to get TO the things he needs to win.

Harry doesn't (or is not allowed to). Harry waits for someone ELSE (Hermione, Fawks, DD, et al) to BRING him what he needs (information, the Sword of Griffindor, whatever).

 

[darkwing_duck1]

JK dropped the ball with the set up of some big issues namely the magical creatures. I mean seriously, the dragons? The giants? the werewolves? where were they?

The only time she paid off the "Harry helps by being nice to those wizards scorn" is the addition of the house elves to the final battle, and that was just a passing mention.

Well, here is the thing about that conversation where he admits what he was doing. He was lieing.

He kept Harry in ignorance because he cared and wanted him to have a "normal" life, which is a manipulative answer, avoiding explaining why he let him be abused for 10 years by the Dursleys. Now, I'm not saying Harry may not have needed the magical protection. I'm saying Dumbledore had the moral responsibility to check in on Harry and see that he was being well fed and given an actual bedroom. Dumbledore did nothing of the sort, but offers no reason.

Then Dumbledore says he will finally tell Harry "everything"... except he doesn't. Now, there may be reasons why he doesn't tell him about Snape, or Horcruxes, etc, but the fact is, by not telling him, Dumbledore is continuing to manipulate him. Harry is never given the actual choice to proceed or not. Dumbledore carefully manages Harry's emotions and reactions to ensure he fighting against Voldy.

In HBP Dumbledore is on the one hand revealing tons to Harry, but at the same time keeping him completely in the dark, to manipulate and control events. It's fine to justify this as "Well it had to be done becaue of ...." but the fact is, he isn't being honest and open with Harry, Harry is being manipulated into doing what Dumbledore wants, these aren't Harry's choices, they are Dumbledore's.

When I look back at that conversation in DD's office after Sirius' death, that is when I really see Dumbledore as a fraud that is just out to manipulate everyone around him. Now, he is more complex than that, and he has his points, but this is his worst hour, this conversation is where he lieing and deceiving and manipulating Harry the most. In the end we agree with him because it was for a "just cause", "for the greater good", but he certainly isn't allowing Harry the full right to make his own informed decisions.

Not to mention that it means he is staking the continued existence of the Wizarding World on the Prophecy...one that he himself has actively KEPT Harry from being ready to fulfill. He treats Harry not as a 'chosen warrior', but as a mere tool of fate and magic.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

In the first 5 books, I'll agree with you somewhat. However, Dumbledore admits in OotP that he was doing it and that he was wrong for doing so! That's the whole emotional point of the "showdown" in DD's office, where the old man blames himself for Sirius' death. Following that, DD does work with Harry directly, and the OotP treats Harry as a full grown wizard, doing everything in their power to prepare Harry for what must be done.

Well, here is the thing about that conversation where he admits what he was doing. He was lieing.

He kept Harry in ignorance because he cared and wanted him to have a "normal" life, which is a manipulative answer, avoiding explaining why he let him be abused for 10 years by the Dursleys. Now, I'm not saying Harry may not have needed the magical protection. I'm saying Dumbledore had the moral responsibility to check in on Harry and see that he was being well fed and given an actual bedroom. Dumbledore did nothing of the sort, but offers no reason.

Then Dumbledore says he will finally tell Harry "everything"... except he doesn't. Now, there may be reasons why he doesn't tell him about Snape, or Horcruxes, etc, but the fact is, by not telling him, Dumbledore is continuing to manipulate him. Harry is never given the actual choice to proceed or not. Dumbledore carefully manages Harry's emotions and reactions to ensure he fighting against Voldy.

In HBP Dumbledore is on the one hand revealing tons to Harry, but at the same time keeping him completely in the dark, to manipulate and control events. It's fine to justify this as "Well it had to be done becaue of ...." but the fact is, he isn't being honest and open with Harry, Harry is being manipulated into doing what Dumbledore wants, these aren't Harry's choices, they are Dumbledore's.

When I look back at that conversation in DD's office after Sirius' death, that is when I really see Dumbledore as a fraud that is just out to manipulate everyone around him. Now, he is more complex than that, and he has his points, but this is his worst hour, this conversation is where he lieing and deceiving and manipulating Harry the most. In the end we agree with him because it was for a "just cause", "for the greater good", but he certainly isn't allowing Harry the full right to make his own informed decisions.

You're right, to a large degree, although I can argue certain points you've made. At the time, DD wasn't sure about the Horcruxes, so why mention those just yet? With Snape, DD promised he would never reveal the slimy prick had any humanity in him. I will agree it seems cruel to let Harry live as he did with the Dursleys. But, if every time Harry was unhappy, his kindly old "uncle" Albus came around and straightened everything out, would Harry have had the inner stregth to face what he had to? Might Harry have turned into a spoiled little prat (Make me a pie or I'm going to call uncle Albus!)? I can make the case that DD very shrewdly weighed the risks of leaving Harry with the Dursleys against the alternatives...and found that despite how horrid the conditions were, they were perfect to make Harry into the man he needed him to be.

There's a difference between not allowing Harry to be "spoiled", and placing him with relatives who starved him until his physical growth was stunted, who let their punk son use him as his personal speed bag.



The Wizarding World is damned lucky DD didn't create the next Voldemort in Harry.

Ahh, but then haven't I just pretty much argued the point you were making? Yes I have... DD comes from the same long line of literary kindly old sages as Gandalf and especially Obi-Wan "certain point of view" Kenobi, who were every bit the shrewd master planner DD was.

People who do things like that (even in the name of "the greater good") we don't call "kindly" or even "shrewd". We call them monsters.

Yes, that includes Kenobi. it's the same thing: Luke is their "last hope", but Kenobi let him sit on his uncles' farm and waste almost 20 years when he SHOULD have been training him in secret to be ready.

 

[coolghoul]

In retrospect, I don't like it.

It was a tiresome book to read. Even tho' I spaced it out to 2-3 days and also went offline to the world (internet, TV) to keep from being spoiled in any way. But it ended up as being not enjoyable to read.

I think the lack of Hogwarts affected me, in a behind-the-scenes kinda way. The moving from place to place seemingly with no-plan, I can understand how it's realistic but I want more plotting fun rather than dreary realism from JKR.

Basically for a last book, I wanted *more* from the characters than a somewhat plodding thru the countryside book. And by characters I didn't want it limited to the three. While people get a moment to shine in the Battle for Hogwarts, I thought it was way too limited for what could be the last visit to such a place from JKR.

And I wanted a rip-roaring, page-turning last 100 pages (well 800 pages, but what I mean is a really great climactic ending). Somehow the battle for hogwarts didn't really cut it for me. For me, GoF would rank supreme (in a Empire Strikes Back kinda way) and then OotP.

 

[Worf412]

Ah ok. I never read the five earlier books, and haven't seen the movie of TCoS in a while.

Just an honest question, but why would you do that? 's quite akin to only reading book 6 of LotR: you may be able to follow what's going on, but the story will have a much lesser impact.

 

[JediKnightButler]

I'm amazed at the level of hostility towards DH. The HP series, like with any series, has its own inherent flaws, contrivances, and plot holes- if you look closely enough. However, I have yet to find a series that built itself into such an amazing series- for children AND adults alike- from books that I thought were originally intended for younger audiences and developed the characters, storyline, etc. in such a consistently engaging manner as the Potterverse.
I don't see a lot of the problems with the finale and the series in general that a lot of people have mentioned in this thread and I feel like that there was really nothing AFAIK that was in the final book that just "came out of nowhere" or hadn't already been foreshadowed or hinted at in previous books. In fact, I thought it was neat how things like Harry's scar/connection with Voldemort, his father's invisibility cloak, and Tom Riddle's Diary (and the destruction thereof) took on increased significance in the overall storyline. Also, why Snape killed Dumbledore in HBP makes a whole lot more sense with the new information we get in DH.
I thought that the expansion of Dumbledore's background was perhaps the most interesting part of the final book- Harry idolized Dumbledore from the beginning of the series, he mourned his death, and then he was forced to develop a deeper- more complex and nuanced- understanding of him in this final book and grapple with the fact that Dumbledore was human too and had his own share of flaws.
I have noted that many people here seem critical of Dumbledore's decision to place him with the Dursley's and I would agree that it was certainly an awful place for him to have to grow up but my thought always was that it may actually have been better for him in some ways. When he first goes to Hogwarts and observes how people seem to fawn over him and his legendary status as "the boy that lived", maybe being sheltered from all of that intense curiosity and adoration for some of his earlier years was better for him and kept him, how shall we say, "humble" and kept him from maybe developing a big ego that could've placed him at risk of going dark/becoming consumed with a lust for power (like Voldemort)? Just a thought.

 

[Gojirob]

Its a good thought. To use an xover example, see how early knowledge of his special nature made Anakin a bear to deal with, despite having a loving mother all along and even an 'owner' prolly not as bad as the Dursleys, the moral issue of slavery aside. Harry walked into Hogwarts, saw a whole class of self-important Dursleys in Slytherin, and wanted nothing to do with them. Plus, sad as it is to say, being on Privet Drive meant almost no magic, save for the involuntary reflexes Harry showed. Harry became so focused on surviving their crap, thoughts of power never entered into him. He'd seen how those with power over others acted; he wanted power over himself and only himself. Voldemort wanted his 'due' whatever the hell that was. And again, it is best that 'The Hidden Prince' be grounded in the mundane before encountering the fantastic.

 

[JediKnightButler]

Its a good thought. To use an xover example, see how early knowledge of his special nature made Anakin a bear to deal with, despite having a loving mother all along and even an 'owner' prolly not as bad as the Dursleys, the moral issue of slavery aside.

I was actually specifically thinking about the contrast between Harry and Anakin and how Anakin's awareness of his status as the "chosen one" among the Jedi might've inadvertently made his fall to the darkside more inevitable in the end, whereas, like you said, Harry could see- in his everyday life- how people who had power could (and did) abuse it and he had a mostly normal life up to the point where he enters Hogwarts- free from a "fan club".
Dumbledore is also another interesting character study about power and the effect it has on him. After the death of Arianna and his falling out with Grindelwald, Dumbledore recognizes- in himself- that he cannot trust himself to wield power- which is why he ultimately refused higher positions of power (i.e. within the MOM).

 

[Gojirob]

Just an OT thought : 'Hogwart's' to me always sounds like one of those colorful curses that MASH's Colonel Potter would exclaim to avoid saying 'Bullshit'.

Good point about DD. That makes the MfM's suspicions of him all the more ironic and totally misplaced. Do you think that the MfM and the leader of Buffy's Watcher Council had tea together, discussing how to be both arrogant and incompetent?

 

[JediKnightButler]

Good point about DD. That makes the MfM's suspicions of him all the more ironic and totally misplaced. Do you think that the MfM and the leader of Buffy's Watcher Council had tea together, discussing how to be both arrogant and incompetent?

Based on the fates of both organizations, I'd say that's a near certainty.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Harry idolized Dumbledore from the beginning of the series, he mourned his death, and then he was forced to develop a deeper- more complex and nuanced- understanding of him in this final book and grapple with the fact that Dumbledore was human too and had his own share of flaws.

"Flaws" is putting it way to kindly. The Manipulative Old B*****d hung "the Chosen One" out to dry in every way possible: from the abuse of the Dursleys to the utter LACK of needed training (save for the half-a**ed efforts of year 6 which were pretty much useless).

I have noted that many people here seem critical of Dumbledore's decision to place him with the Dursley's and I would agree that it was certainly an awful place for him to have to grow up but my thought always was that it may actually have been better for him in some ways. When he first goes to Hogwarts and observes how people seem to fawn over him and his legendary status as "the boy that lived", maybe being sheltered from all of that intense curiosity and adoration for some of his earlier years was better for him and kept him, how shall we say, "humble" and kept him from maybe developing a big ego that could've placed him at risk of going dark/becoming consumed with a lust for power (like Voldemort)? Just a thought.

Because people naturally return hate for love and love for hate, riiiight...

Its a good thought. To use an xover example, see how early knowledge of his special nature made Anakin a bear to deal with, despite having a loving mother all along and even an 'owner' prolly not as bad as the Dursleys, the moral issue of slavery aside. Harry walked into Hogwarts, saw a whole class of self-important Dursleys in Slytherin, and wanted nothing to do with them. Plus, sad as it is to say, being on Privet Drive meant almost no magic, save for the involuntary reflexes Harry showed. Harry became so focused on surviving their crap, thoughts of power never entered into him. He'd seen how those with power over others acted; he wanted power over himself and only himself. Voldemort wanted his 'due' whatever the hell that was. And again, it is best that 'The Hidden Prince' be grounded in the mundane before encountering the fantastic.

BULL!

Anakin's problem wasn't that people doted on him. His problem was that he was treated like crap, his mother was treated like crap, and the people that had the power to make things better said that they couldn't (in reality they wouldn't) act to make things better. Then they added insult to injury by telling him HE wasn't supposed to use his power to make things better.

The Prequel Jedi are a lot like Dumbledore...deceitful, hypocritical gamesmen who have no compunction about ruining lives in persuit of a nebulous "greater good".

The ONLY time the "greater good" arguement ever gets trotted out is when someone is desperately trying to justify something they KNOW is going to be bad for someone else, somewhere else.

Harry Potter was systematically FAILED by the social structure around him, every step of the way. Yet Rowling would have us think kindly of them, and beleive that Harry would selflessly sacrifice himself for them...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I was actually specifically thinking about the contrast between Harry and Anakin and how Anakin's awareness of his status as the "chosen one" among the Jedi might've inadvertently made his fall to the darkside more inevitable in the end, whereas, like you said, Harry could see- in his everyday life- how people who had power could (and did) abuse it...

So could Anakin...after all, before Watto, he and his mother belonged to a Hutt. Anakin knew quite well what uses people with power went to...

Dumbledore is also another interesting character study about power and the effect it has on him. After the death of Arianna and his falling out with Grindelwald, Dumbledore recognizes- in himself- that he cannot trust himself to wield power- which is why he ultimately refused higher positions of power (i.e. within the MOM).

No, he just assumes dictatorial power over helpless little boys and ruins their lives in the name of "the greater good". A world that would ask that of a child to protect itself is a world not worth protecting.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Good point about DD. That makes the MfM's suspicions of him all the more ironic and totally misplaced. Do you think that the MfM and the leader of Buffy's Watcher Council had tea together, discussing how to be both arrogant and incompetent?

Based on the fates of both organizations, I'd say that's a near certainty.

Don't forget all the times DD joined them for their tea parties...

 

[LaxScrutiny]

I have noted that many people here seem critical of Dumbledore's decision to place him with the Dursley's and I would agree that it was certainly an awful place for him to have to grow up but my thought always was that it may actually have been better for him in some ways. When he first goes to Hogwarts and observes how people seem to fawn over him and his legendary status as "the boy that lived", maybe being sheltered from all of that intense curiosity and adoration for some of his earlier years was better for him and kept him, how shall we say, "humble" and kept him from maybe developing a big ego that could've placed him at risk of going dark/becoming consumed with a lust for power (like Voldemort)? Just a thought. .

The way Harry was treated at the Dursley's would result in the police and children's services being called in real life. Vernon and Petunia would be thrown in jail. I've seen cases even less severe that resulted in jail time in the local paper, and there is no public outcry about the Children's Services overreating, the public outcry was disgust over the parents.

The problem with the Dursleys is that Rowling began the series in a completely fanciful, impossible way which is fine for a young children's book. She took a bold step and tried to make it more serious and emotionally realistic.

She should have just moved away from the beginning and ignored it. She certainly shouldn't have had Dumbledore bring it up and try to justify it.

The result of Harry coming out of the Dursley's with the emotional result we see is not at all realistic. This treatment is illegal for a reason. Even assuming that Harry is resiliant or has some kind of magical love protection from his mother that protects him from child abuse, the behaviour can't be justified.

Treating Harry like that on purpose so that he doesn't let his "power" go to his head is obscene. If the books actually had Dumbledore saying this I'd probably have thrown them out after OotP.

Dumbledore, and through him, Rowling, doesn't say that, imply that or believe that. They are surprised and impressed that Harry came out of it in as good shape as he was. They don't think it was proper, or beneficial.

Which just confirms that Dumbledore dumped Harry off at an abusive home and never came back to check if he was being well cared for. This is the point we're making, and sorry, it has nothing to do with Anakin Skywalker.