Thoughts on Harry Potter
Jul. 26th, 2005 12:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomikritzerI bought Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince the day it came out, of course, and read it while on vacation. I'm going to test out my LJ cut-tag (I screw them up about 50% of the time) before posting my thoughts, so if you click and find only a placeholder, come back in a few minutes.
Much spoilage follows, duh, so don't click if you haven't finished reading, but plan to. Also, FYI, Ed has only just started the book and he reads slowly, so for the love of all that's holy, don't spoil HIS reading pleasure by assuming he's read it all since I have.
I rather hope that the various theories about Snape (Dumbledore made him do it, or asked him to do it, or somehow or other he REALLY IS ON OUR SIDE) are correct. See, personally, I find the idea of a character who is incredibly annoying, genuinely obnoxious to the hero, and periodically misguided BUT who is one of the good guys to be quite appealing, and more interesting than someone who is annoying, obnoxious, and who also happens to Serve the Lord of All Evil and Darkness.
Because annoying does not necessarily equal evil, and there will always be people on your side who you don't like. Ask anyone who's ever worked on a political campaign. Personally, I always find the really annoying liberals to be even more infuriating than the really annoying conservatives, because they're out there giving MY side bad press. Anyway, I really liked the idea that Snape was both a bad guy (because he was prejudiced against Harry due to his father, and a jerk to him for bad reasons) and a good guy (because he was a member of the Orrder of the Phoenix, and fighting against Lord Voldemort).
Other thoughts: I loved all the awkward teenaged romance. It was dead on, from my own memories of adolescence. If I may tentatively poke a stick into the shark-infested waters of the Ron/Hermione vs. Harry/Hermione dispute -- I thought it was very clear that she was setting up a relationship between Ron and Hermione, starting in GoF with the whole Krum thing. On the other hand, I was a bit shocked that Lupin swung in Tonks' direction, if you catch my drift. (Maybe he's bi?)
Finally, I love the way this series has captured the imaginations of so many people. I love that all over the Internet, people are having fevered discussions theorizing over a book -- over what's going to happen next. I can recall some similar arguments over the meta arc of the X-Files (the Smoking Man -- good, or evil? How about Deep Throat?) but in the case of the Harry Potter series, it has the coherency and consistency of a story told by a single person, and in another year or two we can expect a genuine resolution of the major plot lines.
Years ago, I remember watching costumed people going by at Minicon and trying to decide whether there was any book series where you could dress up as a character and be as instantly identifiable as you were if you dressed up as a character from media SF. I thought that with proper props (i.e., nine itty-bitty stuffed dragons) you could probably be identifiable by most as Menolly from the Dragon books by Anne McCafferey, but that was all I could come up with. (Ender's Game for many years seemed to be the most widely read book in fandom, at least in the circles I knew, but there's nothing you could wear that would instantly identify you as Ender, particularly if you were over the age of ten.) Around the time Prisoner of Azkaban came out, I spotted a kid at a con who was dressed as Ron Weasley (wizard robes to go with his flaming red hair) and realized that now there was a book with sufficient readership that you could dress as any number of characters (Harry, Ron, Hermione, McGonnagal, Dumbledore) and be easily recognizable as that specific character to others at the con. Now, of course, with the movies, the books are media SF as well as written SF, but I think the point holds. It was literary SF where you could dress as the protagonist and be as instantly recognizable as Captain Kirk. Or almost, anyway.
Much spoilage follows, duh, so don't click if you haven't finished reading, but plan to. Also, FYI, Ed has only just started the book and he reads slowly, so for the love of all that's holy, don't spoil HIS reading pleasure by assuming he's read it all since I have.
I rather hope that the various theories about Snape (Dumbledore made him do it, or asked him to do it, or somehow or other he REALLY IS ON OUR SIDE) are correct. See, personally, I find the idea of a character who is incredibly annoying, genuinely obnoxious to the hero, and periodically misguided BUT who is one of the good guys to be quite appealing, and more interesting than someone who is annoying, obnoxious, and who also happens to Serve the Lord of All Evil and Darkness.
Because annoying does not necessarily equal evil, and there will always be people on your side who you don't like. Ask anyone who's ever worked on a political campaign. Personally, I always find the really annoying liberals to be even more infuriating than the really annoying conservatives, because they're out there giving MY side bad press. Anyway, I really liked the idea that Snape was both a bad guy (because he was prejudiced against Harry due to his father, and a jerk to him for bad reasons) and a good guy (because he was a member of the Orrder of the Phoenix, and fighting against Lord Voldemort).
Other thoughts: I loved all the awkward teenaged romance. It was dead on, from my own memories of adolescence. If I may tentatively poke a stick into the shark-infested waters of the Ron/Hermione vs. Harry/Hermione dispute -- I thought it was very clear that she was setting up a relationship between Ron and Hermione, starting in GoF with the whole Krum thing. On the other hand, I was a bit shocked that Lupin swung in Tonks' direction, if you catch my drift. (Maybe he's bi?)
Finally, I love the way this series has captured the imaginations of so many people. I love that all over the Internet, people are having fevered discussions theorizing over a book -- over what's going to happen next. I can recall some similar arguments over the meta arc of the X-Files (the Smoking Man -- good, or evil? How about Deep Throat?) but in the case of the Harry Potter series, it has the coherency and consistency of a story told by a single person, and in another year or two we can expect a genuine resolution of the major plot lines.
Years ago, I remember watching costumed people going by at Minicon and trying to decide whether there was any book series where you could dress up as a character and be as instantly identifiable as you were if you dressed up as a character from media SF. I thought that with proper props (i.e., nine itty-bitty stuffed dragons) you could probably be identifiable by most as Menolly from the Dragon books by Anne McCafferey, but that was all I could come up with. (Ender's Game for many years seemed to be the most widely read book in fandom, at least in the circles I knew, but there's nothing you could wear that would instantly identify you as Ender, particularly if you were over the age of ten.) Around the time Prisoner of Azkaban came out, I spotted a kid at a con who was dressed as Ron Weasley (wizard robes to go with his flaming red hair) and realized that now there was a book with sufficient readership that you could dress as any number of characters (Harry, Ron, Hermione, McGonnagal, Dumbledore) and be easily recognizable as that specific character to others at the con. Now, of course, with the movies, the books are media SF as well as written SF, but I think the point holds. It was literary SF where you could dress as the protagonist and be as instantly recognizable as Captain Kirk. Or almost, anyway.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-26 11:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 06:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 01:43 am (UTC)