Harry Potter. Book 7 very weird choices in it

[magnutz]

Hi! I just re-read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (it was the second time I read the book) and I feel the need the vent my steam regarding it - and some of the earlier books might be a smidge included. Hopefully some of you have read it (hehe) and can come with ideas/whatnot/thoughts on this.

 

Here goes: JK Rowling kills the wrong characters!! I have never read a story where it feels so out of place, the choices the author's made regarding what characters that will die, and it makes me itch.

 

1. In book 6 She kills off Sirius Black. Ok, Harry's Godfather and a really decent bloke. That felt unnecessary - there must be other ways to incapacitate a literary character besides killing it! Bereave it from magical abilities, imprison it, put it into a coma...

2. In book 7 She kills off Fred, Tonks and Remus. The characters get killed but in a very very sloppy fashion, imo. Fred being one of the twins and has been part of the story since book 1 gets killed by a detonating wall!

 

Remus and Tonks get killed without the reader ever getting to follow it and thus taking away the decency of their passing. Remus having been in many of the books, and also a first time daddy who just had named Harry GodFather to his son, just dies without the reader getting to know the story. Tonks was never a major character in any way but still killed off too offhandishly.

 

3. Book 7 sees Dobby come to an end. Useless killing of a brilliant sidekick character. Killed off to let Harry go into mourning, again. Weak stuff.

 

I dislike the random death of a character scenario. Too much like real life and isn't reading fiction a doorway out of real life in a way?! If you invist time and effort into characters I really believe that you should let their story be told if you really must kill them off, if there is no way around it. I, the reader, feel cheated otherwise. And it feels like stupid writing to me.

 

Anyway.. it sort of feels like the goshdarn book (7) was written to become a movie. The feel of it was/is weird. This doesn't mean that there were no really good parts of the book as well. ;)

 

There. Have a good day!

[The Doctor]

I actually liked the way she worked that.  I'm not happy that characters that I like died, but it served to lend the story weight.

[kamros]

I think you missed the most unnecessary death of all: Hedwig.

srysly, him and dobby were the worst =(

[magnutz]

I actually liked the way she worked that.  I'm not happy that characters that I like died, but it served to lend the story weight.

 

The whole book lacks in weight since it is obviously curbed/cut short. She finishes off the whole Potter-Saga in about 600pgs and it feels weak. Some parts are not good enough as they are, in my opinion. The fight at Hogwarts is fine but as I wrote in my initial post, you as an author can't kill off weight bearing/important/loved/liked characters "between pages" and keep the story balanced. You get glimpses of Remus and Tonks fighting some russian sounding dude, then nothing. Next: They are lying beside Fred in the Great Hall. Dead. They get nothing. They are just dead.

 

In a conspirational tone I'd say that JKR had to cut her story short due to the fact that her book would be printed in one gazillion babillion copies. Taking out 150pgs from the story would lessen the ammount of pages by 150xOne gazillion babillion pages. Too bad. Too many loose ends. The Dudleys, the Deaths of Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Sirius, etc etc. The Snape story is also cut way short. The dang book is a bloody disappointment. And to add cuts to bruises JKR spends a whole lot of space telling the tale of the vagabond tent dwelling teenies... Oh lord..

 

To sum up: They way this book was written lent nothing by way of weight, in my opinion. It left a lot unanswered. Gah. Just as disappointing as R E Feist's Jimmy the Hand. Which is a different story in more than one way. ;)

[Barmacral]

Personally, I felt that the book was a satisfying end to the series, and the only deaths I'd have done differently would be to let Hedwig live, and kill Percy instead of Fred (he just made amends with his family, perfect timing to kill him).

 

Loose ends don't bother me, I don't really need to know everything that goes on after, and having loose ends can be a good way to keep the imagination running after the series is over. She gives closure in a few key areas that needed it, and left the stuff that didn't need it open.

[nnokwoodeye]

I dislike the random death of a character scenario. Too much like real life and isn't reading fiction a doorway out of real life in a way?! If you invist time and effort into characters I really believe that you should let their story be told if you really must kill them off, if there is no way around it. I, the reader, feel cheated otherwise. And it feels like stupid writing to me.

 

I think the randomness was intentional. JKR wanted to show that war isn't pretty or heroic, it just good people dying needlessly.

 

It might not be fun to read, but it is a good lesson.

[magnutz]

Personally, I felt that the book was a satisfying end to the series, and the only deaths I'd have done differently would be to let Hedwig live, and kill Percy instead of Fred (he just made amends with his family, perfect timing to kill him).

 

Loose ends don't bother me, I don't really need to know everything that goes on after, and having loose ends can be a good way to keep the imagination running after the series is over. She gives closure in a few key areas that needed it, and left the stuff that didn't need it open.

 

I see the style/technique she tries to use but in my opinion she does so very clumsily. Like an elephant trying to lick its bum inside of a glass room filled with the finest crystal vases. I don't mind loose ends either, but the loose ends have to be well planned and executed. The actual ending is fine, with the face-off between Good and Evil and also the little stroll Harry P and A Dumbledore takes, no troubles there. But quite a few other instances are not well done. Not in a book that is the closing point of a very long and equally successful series of books. Imagine if the last book in WoT included the sudden and totally unexplained death of several of the semi-important sidecharacters? Like Bayle Domon, Siuan, ?. Bad stuff if so. Edit starts here:

 

WoT will most likely include this since there are sooo many sidekicks around. ;)

[Kaznen]

I think you all are missing the whole point of those deaths.  If all the cool characters survived and lived happily ever after then there wouldn't have been a price that had to be paid.

 

Look at most fantasy.  And do you think the end of WoT will have Mat, Rand, and Perrin celebrated with all the main characters at a giant party?  The books and RJ have said otherwise.

[magnutz]

I think you all are missing the whole point of those deaths.  If all the cool characters survived and lived happily ever after then there wouldn't have been a price that had to be paid.

 

Look at most fantasy.  And do you think the end of WoT will have Mat, Rand, and Perrin celebrated with all the main characters at a giant party?  The books and RJ have said otherwise.

 

No, I haven't really missed any points. I might have been a bit hazy/unclear when I wrote earlier but the main problem I have with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is that the deaths of certain important characters come too suddenly, without proper coverage.

 

I am of the opinion that authors who randomly, or seemingly so, kills off semi/major characters without giving them the send-off they deserve are sloppy writers (even those who claim it was for a purpose). I do not, however, only want happy endings where everyone survives and gets there in time for the big party in the end. What I want is some kind of respect?! If I spend many many hours reading about a character or two (or more) I feel that each of them, if they are included in the main events of the novel, must be given the chance to explain what happens to them.

 

In some stories this is not very necessary but then those stories haven't done their jobs, have they and are among those I never re-read. I usually dismiss the author after a read like that as well. Harsh? Well, it is hours of my lifetime that are consumed by the books that I read so I feel I need to be picky. ;)

 

If WoT deals with Perrin, Aviendha and Thomdril Merrillin in the same way Fred Weasley, Remus Lupin and Tonks were dealt with in Potter book #7 I will set the book on fire and never re-read any of the books again. I do not believe that will happen. I believe that there will be a well thought of setup around each character and if one or two (or more) die/s We'll probably know why and how.

 

Deaths of peripheral characters can be shown casually since they have little or no impact on the main story line.

 

To say that the sudden deaths in HP book #7 were to show the reader the unfairness of life and the hardships of heroes, that is just nonsense in my opinion. I label it as sloppy writing and also as an excuse for not doing the job properly. I know, there are stories where this is very very well structured and the sudden demise of an important character is the best thing, but not in HP book #7 (and #6).

 

There. ;) I hope I have shown my ideas a bit more clearly. ;)

[battousai]

I actually didn't mind the deaths, like what others have said, its to show that the good guys aren't always victorious and come out unharmed. Also, I was strongly expecting Harry to die, but I was really disappointed to see he lived, and gave those ridiculous names to his kids.

 

But to be honest after thinking about it, I came to this conclusion:

 

JK Rowling's Harry Potter fanbase consists of generally young kids. Her books are credited to have encouraged some of the youngest kids to begin reading. These kids are what have created so much hype and love for the book. So I think, she was to an extent compromised in her last book. I got the feeling she wanted to give the same blow to the audience as she did by killing Dumbledore, but had to stop herself, cause of so many kids reading her books. Imagine if she actually decided to kill Harry off? Can you imagine how much criticism she would get from angry parents over their kids who are now depressed that their fantasy hero is dead. So in the end to show the same effect, I think she killed off some of the other characters which the audience didn't really feel that much of a connection to. The biggest of them being Fred.

 

That's the conclusion I've used to convince myself. Overall, I still felt that in comparison to the 6th book, the last book was not as logical or dark as it should have been. I mean c'mon Harry fights Voldemort in front of all the students and is then hailed as the hero while saying corny lines! Plus, lets not forget the doomed epilogue which she should have never written.

[magnutz]

I actually didn't mind the deaths, like what others have said, its to show that the good guys aren't always victorious and come out unharmed. Also, I was strongly expecting Harry to die, but I was really disappointed to see he lived, and gave those ridiculous names to his kids.

 

But to be honest after thinking about it, I came to this conclusion:

 

JK Rowling's Harry Potter fanbase consists of generally young kids. Her books are credited to have encouraged some of the youngest kids to begin reading. These kids are what have created so much hype and love for the book. So I think, she was to an extent compromised in her last book. I got the feeling she wanted to give the same blow to the audience as she did by killing Dumbledore, but had to stop herself, cause of so many kids reading her books. Imagine if she actually decided to kill Harry off? Can you imagine how much criticism she would get from angry parents over their kids who are now depressed that their fantasy hero is dead. So in the end to show the same effect, I think she killed off some of the other characters which the audience didn't really feel that much of a connection to. The biggest of them being Fred.

 

That's the conclusion I've used to convince myself. Overall, I still felt that in comparison to the 6th book, the last book was not as logical or dark as it should have been. I mean c'mon Harry fights Voldemort in front of all the students and is then hailed as the hero while saying corny lines! Plus, lets not forget the doomed epilogue which she should have never written.

 

I think the seventh book really shows her limits as a writer. The story itself is very good but the actuall telling of it is not up to par.

[Lanthirrhos]

lol People die in RL. I think her main point was exactly that. Good people die. Killing and death and war doesn't make sense. It's sensless. It's not JUST a little fancy fairy tale where only the people you want or don't need die.And as for Tonks and Remus... I wouldn't have done it any other way. It again has a certain reality to it. It wasn't written for reader pleasure--quite the opposite.

 

I rather agree with Barm though... perfect time to kill Percy. But that fact that he didn't die only suits my point.

[battousai]

Ya I guess, I found it much too aimed at the younger age group, which to be honest is also kinda fair, since that is the primary age group of her readers. Its just for people that started reading her books when they first came out (1997) to when they finished (2007), would have aged by pretty much 10 years at maximum. So most people that stuck from the first book would undoubtedly be over the age of 18. And at that age, you expect a bit more maturity.

 

That's why I liked the 6th book, since it had the right amount of elements of darkness and solid story telling. The 7th book just didn't have that same impact. Maybe she had to cut some stuff out, but for what was published, I was slightly disappointed.

 

Overall as a series, I still enjoyed it for what it was.

[reyler]

Actually I think Rowling said (and I agree with her) that she specifically didn't kill off Percy because she didn't want it to seem like he had it coming. You know, some moral judgementalism. That said, most of the deaths that ticked me off were the ones of characters that weren't really characters but were apparently supposed to matter. Like, why should I care that Crabbe blew himself up? He had never even spoken before that, much less had sufficient development to have his death be affecting. I don't care that Colin Creevey is dead, he hasn't even been in the last like five books. I didn't even care that Hedwig got fried, the bird had a bigger presence in Harry's life than she had anywhere in the books. Tonks and Lupin did seem a very arbitrary decision, but she explained the whole set-up there was to make up for wussing out on killing off parent Arthur Weasley in book 5, and having a situation with their child to sort of mirror Harry's. Doesn't mean it wasn't poorly executed as a result of the book never showing any viewpoint other than Harry's, but there it is.

[accelerate]

I think what the original poster was trying to convey -- and I share the same opinion -- is not that characters died, but how the manner in which JK Rowling presented their deaths. I have absolutely no problems with good guys dying. Actually, I'm glad some of them did die. But, especially in the case of Tonks & Remus, they died off-screen. That was a cop-out in my opinion. These are characters we've grown to care about. We've invested time into it. Rowling invested time in developing them. And then to just show them next lying side by side, dead, with no details? Bad choice, in my opinion. They deserve to have their deaths elaborated upon. I don't even care if it was a heroic death or a Tasha Yar-esque death, as long as it was "shown" to the reader.

 

The only death that actually did take me by surprise is the twin. That one actually stunned me. But I'm glad it did. That means Rowling at least did a good job in making me care about the character. I just wished she actually wrote about his final moments.

[magnutz]

lol People die in RL. I think her main point was exactly that. Good people die. Killing and death and war doesn't make sense. It's sensless. It's not JUST a little fancy fairy tale where only the people you want or don't need die.And as for Tonks and Remus... I wouldn't have done it any other way. It again has a certain reality to it. It wasn't written for reader pleasure--quite the opposite.

 

I rather agree with Barm though... perfect time to kill Percy. But that fact that he didn't die only suits my point.

 

I don't disagree with the deaths. I disagree with the writing of them, or the lack of it. Sloppy and careless. No effect other than irritation where I'm concerned. fiction isn't RL.

[magnutz]

JKR's fanbase migth have caused problems. The youngest readers (somewhre around 10 years old I guess) are sadly not ready for the last 4 books, and certainly not the last 3 and not at all the last 2 and never ever ever the last one. ;)

 

JKR wrote her story out of childhood somewhere within book 3 and thus changed the requirements for the fanbase. You can't get the hinted intricacies (word/spelling) and the supposed deeper meanings if you haven't kissed you first boy/girlfriend, been drunk, been on some kind of adventure (not climbing the slide in the play grounds outside the kindergarden). So, perhaps she didn't have to adjust the story to fit weenies?! In most situations she does this well, the "keeping it on adult level" but in places the conflict shows clearly. The transparent and so often used plot-sequence where someone you normally could trust turns out to be ready to hand you over to the bad guys/the police to save something he/she values (be it a daughter, wife, husband, necklace).. and of course the almost pure Hollywoodian ending.. a bleedin' pep-rally when HP and Voldie have their face-off in the Great Hall. Gah, I did/do not like that part. ;) Sometimes it really shows that this is a stereotype woman writer. A stereotype male writer would not have chosen the cheezy stuff... ;) oh well. Keep posting thoughts on this, it is very interesting to read.

[Mr Ares]

JK Rowling kills the wrong characters!!

Really? Who should have died then?

 

1. In book 6 She kills off Sirius Black.

That was book 5, Order of the Phoenix. She killed Dumbledore in book 6. And he was killed because he was Harry's godfather. He needed to be written out, and in a way that said he wasn't coming back. Can't make things too easy on the hero. That said, falling through a curtain was a rather rubbish way of doing it, but the actual killing off was the correct decision.

 

Remus and Tonks get killed without the reader ever getting to follow it and thus taking away the decency of their passing.

Well, the books are shown from Harry's pov, and Harry can't be around to witness everything. It is reasonable that people would die without him being there to see, and no reason why fairly well known characters should be immune on this count.

 

I dislike the random death of a character scenario.

And you think Harry Potter is bad for this? Don't read Martin, Erikson or Harry Turtledove. Or Paul Kearney.

Too much like real life and isn't reading fiction a doorway out of real life in a way?!

No. A bit of escapism is fine, but good fiction holds a mirror up to the world.

 

Taking out 150pgs from the story would...

Make it 150 pages shorter than OotP. If she wanted more pages, she could have taken them. Length constraints cannot be blamed for the failings of any of the books.

 

Imagine if the last book in WoT included the sudden and totally unexplained death of several of the semi-important sidecharacters?

You forget one of the principal differences between the two: Harry Potter is told almost exclusively from the pov of its eponymous character. WoT isn't. It is told from a number of povs, so where the one can switch, to show what these people are doing, the other cannot. Of course, RJ might still do it, as he is willing to do things off stage if they are not hugely important and there is no need for them on stage. But if JKR wants to kill people off, she can really only do so if Harry can see it happen (a few exceptions throughout the books, but not many). So she is reliant on Harry being a convenient witness to any given fatality, and there's no reason why deaths should only take place where he can see. It would seem awfully odd. And this is not sloppy writing. Only having deaths take place in Harry's view would have been a bit odd, and far worse writing.

 

They deserve to have their deaths elaborated upon.

People don't always get what they deserve.

[magnutz]

I still think it was porly executed. Just like Raymond E Feist botched the job on Jimmy the Hand - a story that had everything speaking for it to be a extraordinary tale of wonder ;) and it was completely botched. The worst crud I've read with RE Feist's name on it. I get sort of the same feeling in Harry Potter #7. It just doesn't come together right. Regarding character deaths and general story. Too much tent-vagabond stuff and Deathly Hallow nonsense.

 

Speaking of POV - JKR sometimes switches from POV to POV. Mainly from Harry to Voldy. The choice not to do so when offing well liked characters/whatnot characters is just plain crap in my eyes. To sum my opinion of the 7th book:

 

It was a hell of a poor job on the last book in a series of 7.

[battousai]

I still think it was porly executed. Just like Raymond E Feist botched the job on Jimmy the Hand - a story that had everything speaking for it to be a extraordinary tale of wonder ;) and it was completely botched. The worst crud I've read with RE Feist's name on it. I get sort of the same feeling in Harry Potter #7. It just doesn't come together right. Regarding character deaths and general story. Too much tent-vagabond stuff and Deathly Hallow nonsense.

 

Speaking of POV - JKR sometimes switches from POV to POV. Mainly from Harry to Voldy. The choice not to do so when offing well liked characters/whatnot characters is just plain crap in my eyes. To sum my opinion of the 7th book:

 

It was a hell of a poor job on the last book in a series of 7.

 

haha my guess is you're still bitter about the book  :P. Just pass it off and read other fantasy. You'll always have your opinions. Remember also that despite her popularity, JK Rowling is no comparison against fantasy authors such as Martin and RJ. But the fact is that's just how it was written and nothing can change that. I know you just wanna debate the topic, but its probably not all that worth it. Read other fantasy to clear your mind and get a fresh perspective. After I read WoT, I personally saw the league in difference between the HP books and "real" fantasy. But for what its worth, the Harry Potter series was still overall a children's classic and well worth a read despite its shortcomings. 

[magnutz]

I still think it was porly executed. Just like Raymond E Feist botched the job on Jimmy the Hand - a story that had everything speaking for it to be a extraordinary tale of wonder ;) and it was completely botched. The worst crud I've read with RE Feist's name on it. I get sort of the same feeling in Harry Potter #7. It just doesn't come together right. Regarding character deaths and general story. Too much tent-vagabond stuff and Deathly Hallow nonsense.

 

Speaking of POV - JKR sometimes switches from POV to POV. Mainly from Harry to Voldy. The choice not to do so when offing well liked characters/whatnot characters is just plain crap in my eyes. To sum my opinion of the 7th book:

 

It was a hell of a poor job on the last book in a series of 7.

 

haha my guess is you're still bitter about the book  :P. Just pass it off and read other fantasy. You'll always have your opinions. Remember also that despite her popularity, JK Rowling is no comparison against fantasy authors such as Martin and RJ. But the fact is that's just how it was written and nothing can change that. I know you just wanna debate the topic, but its probably not all that worth it. Read other fantasy to clear your mind and get a fresh perspective. After I read WoT, I personally saw the league in difference between the HP books and "real" fantasy. But for what its worth, the Harry Potter series was still overall a children's classic and well worth a read despite its shortcomings. 

 

:) Not bitter just offended! I mean, she could have hired someone skilled enough to tell her when she made a poopy in her writing. ;) Anyway, I have read the 7th book twice now and I know there won't be a 3rd time anytime soon. To my happiness I'm currently into my xx re-read of WoT and that is a splendid piece of work. ;) Fires of Heaven is where I am at the moment!

 

Oh, I think JKR is laughing all the way to the bank eventhough her writing is inferior. ;)

[Liam_1993]

i though the very end  you know the 'ten years later crap' was dreadful AND HARRY SHOULD OF DIED!  >:(

[magnutz]

i though the very end  you know the 'ten years later crap' was dreadful AND HARRY SHOULD OF DIED!  >:(

 

The ending epilogue really shows JKR's lack of heavy duty fantasy writing skills. She turns the ending into a gossip ending. I wish she had used that space dealing a little more with the aftermath of the warlike state the school and the rest of Wizard/witch Country had been in. I liked the story but not how JKR handled it. It sort of grew out of her hands. Like she couldn't hold it together tight enough. The first three books she handled well. Then it got a bit tricky in book four but then in 5 - 6 - 7 she started to have problems I feel. Too many threads for JKR it seems. With all she had going she should have given the story another 2-3 books. That would have played out well, if she had the skills to write it. Maybe she has and maybe she hasn't got the tools.

 

I am thankful I have R.J.'s world to hide in from time to time. Well thought of and he never really wavered from the multitude of threads he wove into the story. Daunting really!

[magnutz]

Oh, she never would have dared to kill Harry Potter. She would have been murdered by some wacko-fan. ;)

[Mr Ares]

Speaking of POV - JKR sometimes switches from POV to POV. Mainly from Harry to Voldy.

But that is explained within the series. Harry has a link to Voldemort, so what we are seeing is Harry in Voldemort's head. Aside from those occasions, we have Dumbledore and McGonagall at the beginning of the first book, the muggle at the beginning of the fourth, and Snape making the Unbreakable Vow at the beginning of the Sixth. That's all that I can think of out of Harry's pov. To do so at the end of the seventh would be inconsistent with what she had written before. So it is a perfectly reasonable choice to remain consistent on the point of povs throughout, rather than ditching it at the end and introducing a lot of them for a very brief period and minimal to no story advancement. It is a perfectly valid stylistic choice. Look at George R.R. Martin. He uses a number of povs, but is quite strict in his introduction of new ones, usually. Aside from prologue and epilogue characters, we tend not to get one shot povs. Martin can and has had events take place off screen - Beric Dondarrion, Robb Stark's campaigns, etc. Rowling was telling Harry's story, primarily, nd the stories of other characters were secondary to that. Quite simply, there was no need for it to be on screen, there was no need for a multi-pov approach to the final battle. Which is not to say that there weren't problems with the last book, because there were. But I don't agree that this was one of them.