Am I the only one who thinks that it would have improved the book if either Harry had died or Ron/Ginny had died?
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
YES. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Probably not, I'm sure opinions will vary greatly
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
You may want to put a spoilers alert on that. It's pretty obvious with the thread title, but still...
And I wouldn't have been surprised if it ended that way. Sad, yes, but not surprised.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why though? That would have been so depressing... I hate books where the hero suffers more than the bad guy. Unfortunetly, that's in about 90% books. The hero goes through hell and the bad guy just goes to jail or gets an easy death. how is that fair?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I do think that if Harry died, the story would be far more "mythic".
I believe it would have been much more powerful of an ending. You can bring up the threads created around the time it came out, for opinions of others. There are some who agree with you and I.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
I don't think Harry's death would have made for a better story and it would have been inconsistent with the first, and probably most powerful of the books' themes: love, self sacrifice, and serving the greater good are more powerful than hate and selfish need to live at any cost and control everyone else. Harry's mother's sacrifice to protect her son personifies this theme. Not to mention the sacrifice of everyone else who died over the course of the books. The themes of the book are stronger with Harry being willing to die for his freinds and good wining over evil.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't see any need for Harry's death. I would far rather have cut out the epilogue, so that we end the book at the moment of loss and appraisal.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
With room for COMPANION NOVELS!
Posted by Damien.m (Member # 8462) on :
I was completely happy with the ending. I wouldn't change a thing!
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I was rather happy with the ending and would only change one thing. I'd kill Percy or Charlie instead of Fred.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Am I the only one who thinks that it would have improved the book if either Harry had died or Ron/Ginny had died?
Omigod no. Why do people think that pointless tragedy is inspiring?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Well, I think a better question is can we allow books to be written by committees?
We have to let the author tell his or her story, and accept that is the story they needed to tell.
Wouldn't it have been better for Ender if he had been happy at the end. If he had been glad and understanding that they had tricked him into destroying an entire species? If Ender could have lived happily ever after, then there would have been no need for three additional books, in which I will point out that even then he does not live 'happily ever after'. He merely finds a degree of contentment and purpose, and settles for that. Yet, his demise is marked by pain and betrayal. No peace in life or death.
[***SPOILERS BELOW***]
Should Harry have died? Well, in a way he did. In fact, he could have accepted death, and simply moved on, leaving the remaining task to others to complete. But, would that have been a grand and noble end for Harry? I think not.
The author told her story as she saw it, and that is that. Now, certainly we can wish and speculate about other possible endings, but in the end, we have to accept what the author wrote.
We've had discussions about whether JKR would modify her ending from her original vision to spare children and other readers any degree of tragedy or ill-feelings. What ever else JKR did that was the one thing I did not want her to do. I wanted her to stay true to her original idea, not matter how painful the result.
Consequently, I accept the story as written.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Am I the only one who thinks that it would have improved the book if either Harry had died or Ron/Ginny had died?
Omigod no. Why do people think that pointless tragedy is inspiring?
Thank you. Agreed.
I don't get that argument frankly. You don't have to kill the hero, or ruin his life, or take everything away from him in order to make the whole thing worthy or worthwhile. Sometimes the hero struggles, sacrifices, loses people close to him, and still manages to make a good life out of it in the end. So Harry lived, got married, his friends survived, and out of all the tragedy that he lived through for 16+ years, things turned out okay for him. Why isn't that enough? What does another death REALLY do for the story?
No one was really safe in these books. Characters we loved died. We lost Tonks, one of the Weasley twins (I can't remember if it was Fred or George), we lost Lupin, and earlier we'd lost Dumbledore and Sirius. For a series that managed to create so many characters for us to love, I think way too many of them were killed off, so I find it hard to believe that many people would think we needed MORE people to die for it to be satisfying.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Well said, BlueWizard
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:but in the end, we have to accept what the author wrote.
I'm not entirely sure that this is true. It might be the only practical approach, but I think that's mainly due to tradition and law.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Don't take this as a cut on Christianity, but I'm curious to know whether there's anyone here who isn't a Christian and who thinks that killing off one of the main 3 characters would have made the ending better.
The reason I'm asking is that I have a feeling that growing up with one of ones major stories having been one where the main character gets killed off could make some people feel like that's an essential part of an important story.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Why do people think that pointless tragedy is inspiring?
I disagree with your characterizing the death of one of the major characters as "pointless." Had defeating Voldemort required Harry's death in truth, not just some pseudo-train stop death, it would hardly have been "pointless."
Edit to answer Lisa's latest post:
Remember that the archetype of the mythic hero who must sacrifice himself to defeat the Evil One is prevalent in a lot of mythology that is not related to Christianity, and indeed some that predate Christ.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I don't think Harry's death would have made for a better story and it would have been inconsistent with the first, and probably most powerful of the books' themes: love, self sacrifice, and serving the greater good are more powerful than hate and selfish need to live at any cost and control everyone else.
Isn't that a contradiction? How would Harry's death be inconsistent with the themes of self-sacrifice or serving the greater good?
I'll be honest - I was rooting for Harry to die. I'm a sucker for the grandiose mythological stories, and the "Hero Dying" theme is one of my favorites. That said, I'm happy to take the book as written, up until page 743 (or whatever). I don't like the Epilogue.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Remember that the archetype of the mythic hero who must sacrifice himself to defeat the Evil One is prevalent in a lot of mythology that is not related to Christianity, and indeed some that predate Christ.
I suspect there are relatively few Mithra worshippers on Hatrack, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Why do people think that pointless tragedy is inspiring?
I disagree with your characterizing the death of one of the major characters as "pointless." Had defeating Voldemort required Harry's death in truth, not just some pseudo-train stop death, it would hardly have been "pointless."
But defeating Voldemort DIDN'T require his death. Him dying for nothing would in fact have been pointless. Had he died and STAYED dead when he was AK'd, who would have defeated Voldemort afterwards? I think Harry not surviving the "pseudo-train stop death" would have required a major revision to the ending of the story.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Don't take this as a cut on Christianity, but I'm curious to know whether there's anyone here who isn't a Christian and who thinks that killing off one of the main 3 characters would have made the ending better.
Since the central story of Christianity is one where the hero gives his life but rises again, I would expect Christians to be the group mostly likely to be satisfied with the ending of Deathly Hallows. I'm more curious about any Christians who think that the book would have been better if Harry had stayed dead. Do you also feel Jesus' sacrifice would have been more meaningful if he hadn't risen from the tomb?
I find it interesting that the one story of sacrifice that is shared in Jewish, Muslim and Christian tradition is the story of Abraham sacrificing his son. Certainly this is a story of ultimate sacrifice. I think most parents would prefer to give their own life rather than kill their child. Yet in this story that is central to three religions, Abraham's hand is stayed and though he is willing God does not permit him to make this ultimate sacrifice.
If you think that the Harry Potter series would have been better if Harry had died, do you think the story of Abraham would be more powerful if God had allowed him to kill his son?
While there are mythic tales of the hero who dies, those aren't the stories of the modern religions that are the foundation of our culture.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:But defeating Voldemort DIDN'T require his death. Him dying for nothing would in fact have been pointless. Had he died and STAYED dead when he was AK'd, who would have defeated Voldemort afterwards? I think Harry not surviving the "pseudo-train stop death" would have required a major revision to the ending of the story.
No, I'm not saying he shouldn't have survivied the pseudo-train stop death, I think it would have been better had that fiasco never happened at all.
Him dying for nothing is indeed pointless, I'd rather he died for something. Or someone.
What bothers me is Rowling set up a mythic story and didn't deliver. "Neither can live while the other survives" remember that? Dumbledore telling Harry he had to die? She didn't deliver on the story she set up and I found that disappointing. :shrug: I know most people disagree, and that's cool.
quote:I suspect there are relatively few Mithra worshippers on Hatrack, though.
I still believe you can find many people who love the mythic hero story that are not Christian. I certainly know of Christians on this board who have agreed with you about the ending, in fact.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: That said, I'm happy to take the book as written, up until page 743 (or whatever). I don't like the Epilogue.
I know I'm in the minority here but I think that the Epilogue is perfect. I know it doesn't answer lots of questions, but in my mind it answers the questions that would be most important to Harry. When Harry looked into the mirror he didn't see a successful career, fame, riches and adventure. He saw himself surrounded by loving family. That was what he desired most. And what Rowling showed us in the epilogue was a moment in time when Harry has achieved that dream.
We see him with a loving wife and as a loving father surrounded by his closest friends. The dialogue that goes on over Teddy Lupin, emphasizes that Harry (having married Ginny) is now a real part of the Weasley family. The discussion he has with Albus Severus reveals that unlike Severus Snape and Tom Riddle who allowed the suffering of their youth to poison their hearts and shape their lives, Harry has managed not to become the bitter angry man we saw he could have become in OotP. What else would have been truly important to Harry?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I liked the Epilogue too. So many heroic stories end with the hero having to lose so much more than the badguy. Not getting to have kids, dying young, not finding love and just losing everything would be a total rip off. I liked the Epilogue ending with Harry with his family, comforting his son and life going on. That's much better than him just losing his life and having more suffering. Besides, the VOLDERMORT part of him died.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:But defeating Voldemort DIDN'T require his death. Him dying for nothing would in fact have been pointless. Had he died and STAYED dead when he was AK'd, who would have defeated Voldemort afterwards? I think Harry not surviving the "pseudo-train stop death" would have required a major revision to the ending of the story.
No, I'm not saying he shouldn't have survivied the pseudo-train stop death, I think it would have been better had that fiasco never happened at all.
Him dying for nothing is indeed pointless, I'd rather he died for something. Or someone.
What bothers me is Rowling set up a mythic story and didn't deliver. "Neither can live while the other survives" remember that? Dumbledore telling Harry he had to die? She didn't deliver on the story she set up and I found that disappointing. :shrug: I know most people disagree, and that's cool.
quote:I suspect there are relatively few Mithra worshippers on Hatrack, though.
I still believe you can find many people who love the mythic hero story that are not Christian. I certainly know of Christians on this board who have agreed with you about the ending, in fact.
I guess I'm in the minority who think that for Harry, living was its own sacrifice. Besides, he was willing to make the sacrifice, he MADE the sacrifice, and then he had to live anyway. Some, myself included, could argue that him dying would have been the easy way out.
Frankly, dying is overrated.
Edit to add: I think she delivered, but then I never put a lot of stock in that particular prophesy for a few reasons. 1. Dumbledore himself admitted that he was wrong from time to time, and he said that one of them would kill the other. 2. Harry breaks rules. His mother dying to save him had never happened in wizard history. One could argue that if cop outs weren't allowed, the story would have ended 10 pages into the first chapter of the first book. 3. "Neither can live while the other survives," to me means simply that one of them has to kill the other, and then one won't survive, so the other CAN live. And I think this was also a direct reference to the horcrux.
But, I can see how you could easily feel cheated by the end. We just disagree on it, Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: What bothers me is Rowling set up a mythic story and didn't deliver. "Neither can live while the other survives" remember that? Dumbledore telling Harry he had to die? She didn't deliver on the story she set up and I found that disappointing. :shrug: I know most people disagree, and that's cool.
What didn't Rowling deliver? "Neither can live while the other survives" does not imply that both must die. It says simply that Harry could not "live" if Voldemort survived. Voldemort doesn't survive, so Harry could. And as a mentioned above, Harry's "pseudo train stop death" closely parallels the two greatest sacrafice myths in our culture. Why then does it fail to be a story of mythic proportion?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
She didn't deliver on the ending for me. Honestly this keeps happening and it's the third time we've had this discussion - once on a thread speculating before the book came out, once after it came out, and here again. I've said how I feel in all three threads, and people seem to not understand it, why can't there just be people who prefer a certain type of story? I only posted again in this one to let the OP know that there were, indeed, others who felt the same way about the ending.
I thought Rowling was, throughout the series, building up to a climax that would involve the sacrifice of the hero's life. That's how I interpreted the series. Then, when Harry had his walk, I thought that was going to be the end. I felt the "coming back to life" and the defating of Voldemort by a trick ("OOOH! You didn't figure out who was the real master of the wand! Gotcha!") was a let-down. For me. Again, please note the personal pronouns - this is about me and MY interpretation of how the series was going and MY reaction. I'm not saying anyone else does or should feel the same way.
I'm not going to determine what parts of it fit the mythic archetype and which don't because that would make it into a a literary research project, and I have enough of them to do right now, so no thanks. It's just a story, a group of books I read for entertainment, as far as I'm concerned. I was personally disappointed in the way it ended, just as I was disappointed in Return of the Jedi, for example. I didn't think the series ended as strongly as it began.
That's all there is to it, it doesn't bear on how I interpret the texts sacred to my religion, it doesn't mean I think people who don't agree with me are wrong, it just means for me, the story would have worked better with a different ending. I'm sure J.K. Rowling will lose no sleep over my disappointment, nor will she hesitate to cash the check which includes my share of her royalties. And more power to her, it was an entertaining series, and I enjoyed it for the most part.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
No, it wouldn't have been better.
If you really want an "epic" fantasy where everything turns to ashes in the hero's hands and defeat is always snatched from the jaws of victory, go read Moorcock's Elric.
Harry lost so many loved ones in previous books, all the way back to the start of book one. I see nothing wrong with the tide turning so he can have some peace and joy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree with Belle.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:If you really want an "epic" fantasy where everything turns to ashes in the hero's hands and defeat is always snatched from the jaws of victory, go read Moorcock's Elric.
I have. And I think it was awesome.
It's not about wanting to see the hero suffer. It's about building up an evil force that is supposedly so evil, it takes great measures to defeat him. Voldemort was defeated by some sleight of hand - (Ha! Ha! You thought you had the awesomest wand all along and you didn't! -) which made the ending feel cheap, and not fulfilling.
If Voldemort is so terrible, that everyone is scared to even say his name, then he shouldn't be felled by a trick. That's all.
Had the ending been written differently, without the Matrix-esque train stop sequence, even if Harry lived, I would have liked it better. It's not Harry's death I want so much as a better ending, period. There might have been a way to have Harry live and it still take great effort and sacrifice to defeat Voldemort, but instead she gave us a parlor trick and killed some minor characters to make it seem like it cost a lot. *shrug* That just doesn't do it for me.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I wanted to see Harry graduate. I read the story as a "school" story. The story started with Harry beginning school, continued through all his classes and finals. Without the graduation, the story felt incomplete. Also, there is this scene of between Harry and Dudley that implies change in their relationship. In the epilogue, something about that change would have been nice.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But that wasn't why Voldermort was defeated. Voldermort was defeated because he's stupid. not stupid in a "I thought this wand was powerful, but it isn't way." He's stupid because he underestimates all the things that are important. He wasn't defeated because thw and was weaker than he thoguht it was. It was Harry's sacrifice and the love the people around him had for him that really defeated Voldermort. Once his Horcruxes were destroyed, the same curse rebounded back on him because of love again... That's why the ending is cool.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Perhaps it's just because I had only read the books once, but I was completely lost with the whole wand thing. I don't remember Draco taking Dumbledore's wand at all. So I was pretty much just doing the mental equivalent of smiling and nodding for much of the end of Deathly Hallows.
The ending did feel unsatisfying to me, but I can't quite put my finger on why. I think I would probably need to reread the full series to really understand what would have made a good ending for me.
--Mel
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
This may seem like a superficial point, but let's not forget that the series was a major part of an entire generation's childhood. Kids grew up seeing themselves as Harry Potter. I think it would have been needlessly depressing to have Harry die. Rowling addressed themes of self sacrifice through Harry's parents, Dumbledore, and Snape. She showed that good people can die unexpectedly through characters such as Sirius, Cedric, Fred, Lupin, Tonks, etc. Let's face it, she gave us death and sacrifice from every angle! I think it's actually a good thing that she also decided to show that being a hero doesn't mean that one has to die.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Belle, I'm sorry I wasn't around for the previous discussions. I was bicycle touring in Poland and so wan't on the internet for several weeks. I didn't know you had beat the subject to death and wasn't asking a rhetorical question or trying to bash your religion.
I know that the ending was unsatisfactory to you. What I'm trying to understand is why? Certainly I don't have to explain to someone who is studying to be an English literature teacher the value of exploring why you react to a story the way you do. If you aren't motivated to explore the question for Harry Potter, that fine. This isn't a required class.
But I would still like to understand why some people feel that this story is less meaningful, less heroic and less epic because Harry's death wasn't permanent. If there is anyone who is willing to discuss the issue with me, I'd like to continue.
And as for the argument that Rowling was throughout the series, building up to a climax that would involve the sacrifice of the hero's life and then copped out in the end. If that is the way you feel then you missed one of the most important themes of the book.
Starting with the very first book, Rowling plays on the fact that things are rarely what they appear to be. At the end of the first book, it caught me completely by surprise that Quirrel was the villain yet looking back through the book the clues were there all along. That was one of the things that I found so entertaining about the books. Rowling was able to surprise me with the conclusion to the books without using a Deus ex Machine device. At least that was true for the first four books. By the fifth book either she got more obvious or I'd learn to pay better attention to the subtle clues she dropped.
From the very first chapter of the very first book "The boy who lived", Rowling was telling us that Harry would defeat Voldemort and live at the same time she was building up the ominous threat that he might die. All the clues were there.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: [QUOTE
If Voldemort is so terrible, that everyone is scared to even say his name, then he shouldn't be felled by a trick. That's all.
Dumbledore said in the very first book that Voldemort's name had only the power people lent to it. That it was a phony-fake name a sad, bitter, psychotic man built up out of shame and hatred, not a "Cosmic Force of Doom".
And "minor characters"?
Well, minor in that they weren't Harry, but many of them had been in the series forever (or nearly so), and were part of the new family Harry'd been craving and trying to create ever since he found life beyond the Dursley's.
I will always disagree with the view that pain is innately more meaningful than happiness, or that happiness is impossible after a painful sacrifice.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Lupin, George, Tonks, even Hedwig were pretty meaningful to me. Dobby too... Poor him.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
This discussion keeps reminding me of Stranger Than Fiction (And Pamela Dean's trilogy)... What respsonsibilties do we have to the characters?
I know it's silly, but whenever I really get to know a character, and that character is real to me, I don't want them to die -- Regardless of whether or not they're good or evil. And wouldn't my wanting their death be similar to murder? What price am I willing to make these [fictional] characters pay, just so I can have a good cry at the end of a book?
Of course, I feel guilty whenever I kill a bug, so, I'm sure not many others share my sentiments... If any. I'm rather impressionable. (I prefer compassionate)
In fact, I'm actually willing to, given the choice, cheapen the HP series (Arguable further) just so that Dumbledore,Fred,Sirius, and Dobby, and Hedwig and Snape wouldn't die. There are more I wished to spare, but listing them would be tedious. So I won't even mention Harry's Parents, or Tonks, or Lupin... Well, maybe not quite that much. Just Fred... No, Tonks! No... Sirius... Phooey.
I like to feel relieved at the end of a book (or series of books). (As you can imagine, George R.R. Martin has infuriated me on many occasions.)
That being said, from a purely intellectual standpoint, I think Harry's death would have been a letdown. And so would Ron's or Hermione's. I just don't see how it could work.
[/rambling]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Dumbledore said in the very first book that Voldemort's name had only the power people lent to it.
Yeah, but it turned out that he was full of it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that it was a good ending, but I think that it may have been more powerful if he had died willingly to remove the threat of Voldemort.
That being said, I also think that Jesus' death would have meant more if he had not known he wasn't going to stay dead....if he had not known he was God himself.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Dumbledore said in the very first book that Voldemort's name had only the power people lent to it.
Yeah, but it turned out that he was full of it.
Not really. Voldermort just set up that spell because he knew Harry can freely say his name.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I know it doesn't answer lots of questions, but in my mind it answers the questions that would be most important to Harry.
I didn't need the Epilogue to answer any questions. I'm okay with unanswered questions at the end of a series; IMO, it actually makes the series feel both richer and more real. What I needed was for the Epilogue to give us the denouement that we hadn't gotten in the previous chapter, the moment when the surviving characters all assess what's happened and determine to rebuild; it's the point when we get to measure how much the journey has changed everyone. That's the most important part of any ending -- and that's the part Rowling completely skipped. (This belief of mine, BTW, is also why I deplored Jackson's removal of The Scouring of the Shire.) The epilogue let us see everyone after they were done with the work of rebuilding, which is infinitely less satisfying.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I did actually like the epilogue, although I completely see why other people don't. In a way, it's unnecessary to the plot; but in another way, a lot of people have grown up with these books and invested a lot of time and emotion in Harry's life, and I think there's something valuable in seeing that he has been able to create a life for himself, that Voldemort's power was not so great that it prevented Harry from ever attaining happiness and the family he's always wanted. Also I thought it was quite good that she mentioned Teddy Lupin, and made it clear that he had grown up more or less happily, with a lot of loving friends around him. Because he's in the same boat as Harry was, but he, unlike Harry, has been able to grow up with loving friends around him. You know, that because of all the fighting and suffering that has gone on throughout the books, and because of the sacrifice his parents made fighting Voldemort, the wizarding world has changed in tremendously significant ways, and Teddy does not have to grow up the way that Harry did.
Plus I think that we already know how the journey has changed everyone, because we've been there at every step seeing them change.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I know it doesn't answer lots of questions, but in my mind it answers the questions that would be most important to Harry.
I didn't need the Epilogue to answer any questions. I'm okay with unanswered questions at the end of a series; IMO, it actually makes the series feel both richer and more real. What I needed was for the Epilogue to give us the denouement that we hadn't gotten in the previous chapter, the moment when the surviving characters all assess what's happened and determine to rebuild; it's the point when we get to measure how much the journey has changed everyone. That's the most important part of any ending -- and that's the part Rowling completely skipped. (This belief of mine, BTW, is also why I deplored Jackson's removal of The Scouring of the Shire.) The epilogue let us see everyone after they were done with the work of rebuilding, which is infinitely less satisfying.
Aha! Yes, I think that's exactly why I was unsatisfied with the ending. It would have been fine, I think, if Rowling had added one more chapter before the epilogue to deal with those points.
--Mel
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I think that it was a good ending, but I think that it may have been more powerful if he had died willingly to remove the threat of Voldemort.
That being said, I also think that Jesus' death would have meant more if he had not known he wasn't going to stay dead....if he had not known he was God himself.
I know!!! That totally ruined the bible for me. Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Well, that's why they made the execution REALLY painful. I mean, Passion of the Christ was rated R for a reason! (Note: I've never seen Passion of the Christ because it was rated R, an I boycott those just because I don't care for any film that's going to try to be the most shocking) I've read the book though.
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: (Note: I've never seen Passion of the Christ because it was rated R, an I boycott those just because I don't care for any film that's going to try to be the most shocking) I've read the book though.
I'm not sure I understand this logic. I don't watch R rated movies because of the imagery, not the content. But you are saying that you don't watch them because of the content. Yet, isn't reading the book getting the same message? I mean, proposing that the book and movie are relativly close in content, wouldn't you boycott both? Or are you ok with the message entering through your mind, and not your eyes? I'm not attacking you, just confused.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Reading is a very different experience for me from movies. I can tolerate things in books that I loathe seeing in movies.
No, it isn't the same message, because the medium is different.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I thought Rowling was, throughout the series, building up to a climax that would involve the sacrifice of the hero's life. That's how I interpreted the series.
In some ways, perhaps, but he also almost dies in every single book. Once I started reading it, I knew none of the headliners would die - though I was very broken up over the supports that did.
The wand thing was a little too complicated, I think. But I don't know, maybe if we'd had more clues on that, it wouldn't have been as fun to read.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The wand thing made sense to me. In order for a wand from another person to work properly it has to be mastered by the person taken it. The Elder Wand was Malfoy's because he used the disarming spell on Dumbledore who was quite defeated at the time. Makes sense to me.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
It made sense to me too. Actually, it pleased me; it was tidy and elegant. After all of Voldemort's work making Horcruxes and tracking down the Elder Wand, the fate of the wizarding world ultimately hung on that one moment at Malfoy Manor.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's not a cop out. It made Harry Potter, which had the potential to be an epic, into a mere story.
Edit: Imagine describing the book to someone in a hundred years. "And he heroically sacrifices his life to defeat Voldemort and ensure that good will triumph" or "And Voldemort accidentally killed himself, oopsy"
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
When he took Malfoy's wand, was there any indication that would turn out to be important?
By the way, my 7 year old wanted to start "Deathly Hallows" last night. He read the numbers of the chapters and then the first page of actual text. But he wasn't sure who Snape was.
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Reading is a very different experience for me from movies. I can tolerate things in books that I loathe seeing in movies.
No, it isn't the same message, because the medium is different.
But if "X" is viciously killed in the book, then the movie comes out and depicts the same horrific death that "X" had in the book, how is the message any different? I agree that I can tolerate things in books (Exorcist for example), but not the movie of the book. This is because I cannot stand to SEE violence, but I don't shy away from the book. I can choose what I want to "see" when I'm reading. But the message (i.e. the Story) is still the same.
I guess I'm posing this question more to the people who don't watch R rated movies because they are known to be of "questionable" material, yet will read a horror book, or something of the sort with no problem. I have met such a person recently, and I view that as a bit hypocritic.
Now that I think about it, maybe I should move this discussion to it's own thread.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I don't think the books had the potential to become epics. Even if Harry had died. Classics, much-loved favorites, definitely -- but the spotty character development and weak plotting throughout the series pretty much quelled any chance of epic-dom.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Harry does heroically sacrifice his life to make sure that goodness will triumph. It's not less heroic because things turn out differently. Voldemort loses because of his own arrogance: he believes he's too clever for anyone to figure out what he's up to, and he perpetually ignores things that don't impress him, and that's what defeats him.
I really do find that elegant. Voldemort has systematically defeated himself from the word go, and in the end his own spell destroys him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It made Harry Potter, which had the potential to be an epic, into a mere story.
Why does the hero have to die for it to be an epic?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
landybraine- I didn't see another thread started, so I'll give my answer here. I think that the tone is an important part of the message, the feeling the text/movie gives you. So, if a book has a statement, bob suffered a gory death, that is very different then bob suffered a gory death with much description of blood and gory death (I don't really want to write out a description of bloody gory death, but I am sure that people can imagine it). While the story is the same, the focus is different, which drastically changes the message. Or imagine a story which says "then Bob and Jane retired to the bedchambers to celebrate their love..." vs a story where the dots are filled in and you find out about bob's mole located where the sun don't shine. Same story, same event, but one goes in the romance/erotica section. And you leave the scene with a very different feeling and interpretation of the story of bob and jane's love.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I don't think the books had the potential to become epics. Even if Harry had died. Classics, much-loved favorites, definitely -- but the spotty character development and weak plotting throughout the series pretty much quelled any chance of epic-dom.
I agree it wasn't near epic. I think Harry Potter was a great series, but I don't think even better character development and better plotting (or Harry dying, for that matter) would have made it epic, at least as I use the word.
It had some epic themes, but not the underlying subcreation and mythos. I don't think she tried to do either of these, nor was it necessary or diminishing of her work. It was a choice she made, and likely the right one.
What she attempted to do could have been improved - it was, after all, her first work - but the changes necessary to make it epic would have made it an entirely different work, even if superficial similarities remained.
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But that wasn't why Voldermort was defeated. Voldermort was defeated because he's stupid. not stupid in a "I thought this wand was powerful, but it isn't way." He's stupid because he underestimates all the things that are important. He wasn't defeated because thw and was weaker than he thoguht it was. It was Harry's sacrifice and the love the people around him had for him that really defeated Voldermort. Once his Horcruxes were destroyed, the same curse rebounded back on him because of love again... That's why the ending is cool.
Exactly. Harry needed to die for them to have any shot at killing Voldemorte. The only reason Harry returned to life was because Voldemorte had underestimated love (again) and discounted the protection Lily's sacrifice had provided, and used Harry's blood anyway in his rebirthing ritual. I thought it was a great ending. He sacrificed himself for love, and love saved him again.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
landybraine - The difference for me between a movie and a book is the movie feeds me images which are often way more (fill in the blank) then my own mind makes them when I read a book. I can read a book and take a graphic scene and my mind envisions it a little less graphic than a director often portrays it on screen. There were scenes in Harry Potter when played out on the screen were much more intense then when I read them and my brain supplied the images.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)