Yet Again, It All Comes Back to Star Wars

[rinue]

My affection for the Potter books follows a fairly perfect sine wave section, in that I thought books 1 and 7 were enjoyable but mediocre, hated books 2 and 6, liked but was dubious about 3 and 5, and really loved 4. Which means, roughly, that every book since 4 has been a let down by getting worse instead of better.

I liked the first half of seven a lot; I love grail quests with a passion. But the last third dragged, and the last 150 pages were excruciating to the extent that I'm having to really think hard to remember that I liked the first part. Something that's been in the structure of the books since the beginning is the "Dumbledore Explains it All" ending; I don't think there's been a book which hasn't concluded with a long summary of what's already happened, in case a kid has missed something. Maybe this is necessary, maybe it isn't; regardless, it's something that's difficult to do well, even in mysteries where the author is revealing new clues. Characters explaining stuff they've already done: the most boring and bloodless form of exposition.

When each Potter book hits that point (and as the books get more complicated, the explanations only take longer - book 6, with the exception of the last 50 pages, was nothing but), I start skimming. In this book there were three "why I have done what I have done," one after the other - Aberforth, Dumbledore, Snape - broken up by a battle that is grand enough the stakes stop being personal and it just comes down to good guys versus bad guys. I started skimming. I had to go back later to find the bit where it said Remus and Tonks had died, because I skipped over it the first time.

This is perhaps mainly a personal frustration; from what I'm seeing on LJ, people are mostly excited to see which of their theories came true, or to see written out in full the subtext we already knew was there. I never feel satisfaction when I'm proved wrong or right about these things; if I'm wrong, the story is thinner than I hoped it was, and if I'm right, I already knew. It's like when you've figured out how to win a board game and it's annoying to have to wait through the eight turns until it's over.

I'm sorry that this comment is mostly so down on the book - as I've said, I found many of the early parts delightful. Hermione was almost too awesome, but, heck, I like my ladies too awesome. Luna was great. Kreacher's redemption was fun even if I found it too quick and too complete a change. I was fascinated by the inner Gringott's stuff - the differing Goblin views of ownership, the captivity of that dragon, the spells on the bank, the grudge about wand use. These are the things of which compelling universes are made.

The less said about the epilogue, the better.

The real thing I've gotten from this book is, once more, a deep appreciation for the direction of The Empire Strikes Back. Something that has always meant the most to me in the Potter books is the willingness to engage in small moments - study sessions, trips to Hogsmeade, Christmas sweaters. Fantasy epics tend to leave out anything insufficiently grand unless it's in there for comic relief or character motivation. Robert Jordan and the Wachowski brothers don't get it at all. Tolkien was bad about it; C.S. Lewis wasn't, especially in Caspian and Dawn Treader.

In The Empire Strikes Back, there's that small moment before the Battle of Hoth, when Luke and Dack are strapping into their snowspeeder, and it's a beautiful day, and Dack is exhilirated and cocky because he's going into battle with Luke Skywalker. It's human, underplayed and unnecessary, and it makes the universe a place where people live. Empire is packed with this stuff - Luke tasting Yoda's soup, or being distracted while his prosthetic hand is tested; Han's complicated reaction when Lando hugs him, or the way he offers Leia his arm in Cloud City. All the times when people aren't being badasses, when they seem to have forgotten a camera is there, or that, golly, they're on spaceships and have laser swords. (Mark Hamill is particularly great at this, and I wish more people would give him props for it.)

Most of all, I think of Empire's "Dumbledore Explains it All": Luke, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. Beautifully handled, gentlemen. Beautifully handled.

Comments

[pink-skirts.livejournal.com]

I liked the first half of seven a lot; I love grail quests with a passion. But the last third dragged, and the last 150 pages were excruciating to the extent that I'm having to really think hard to remember that I liked the first part. Something that's been in the structure of the books since the beginning is the "Dumbledore Explains it All" ending; I don't think there's been a book which hasn't concluded with a long summary of what's already happened, in case a kid has missed something. Maybe this is necessary, maybe it isn't; regardless, it's something that's difficult to do well, even in mysteries where the author is revealing new clues. Characters explaining stuff they've already done: the most boring and bloodless form of exposition.

I realize I just quoted a gigantic chunk of what you said, but this was pretty much my exact feeling of reading HP7. I was excited, and then... But I was disappointed in a lot of it. The clouded morality of using unforgivable curses without actually exporing it, the slytherins still being pretty much all evil, Neville being heroic but without the fumbling (I want both!). In any case, it was falling short in so many avenues.

And I agree, I think what I liked best about HP was not the EPIC (convoluted) plot but the little moments, the friendship of the trio (which is probably why I loved the first half so much).

Also, I think Ginny is stupid.

[rinue.livejournal.com]

I think Ginny's not so much stupid as...not a character. For someone we've spent so much time around, I don't have a handle on her at all. Rowling is normally good at giving characters hooks, even if they only show up for a sentence. But it's like Ginny's more of a setpiece than a person, maybe because she's so often the one in need of rescuing, or the uncorrupted and unattainable goal. It's hard to be a person and a symbol, I guess. Which is maybe also why they weren't sure what to do with Draco in this book.

The use of the unforgiveables really bugged me, especially without any kind of remorse or "hmm, I wonder if we should do that" - most especially when people (adults!) who weren't Harry were doing them. I could get it if he'd just decided "no, this is what I have do to" - but instead it seems that everyone made the same decision at the same time, with no warning. Maybe it was supposed to be set up by the way Remus criticizes Harry for being too merciful in the beginning fight scene?

[solipsiae.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Harry busting out a Crucio barely got any ethical consideration. I was like, since when was that okay? Was that JK's nod to America's totally okay use of torture if we're fighting TERRORISM? Bluh.

[narcolepticcat.livejournal.com]

god, this is so interesting and jus points up the many reasons i love you, and how excited am i to bear his conversation out in person soon! that said, i found the last 150 pages to be the most breathless passage of reading i've encountered in lo so, so many days. and as, dark as it is for me to dmit that the first is my favorite book, this has now supplanted it...