Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Post Your Reviews Here

What other authors do Tolkien fans enjoy? Come on in and enter into a broadened conversation on the great literature of this and other times.

Postby TheWagner » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:13 pm

MithLuin wrote:I don't think I'd be able to 'take' the "I open at the close" scene if Harry and his mum and dad looked to be about 3 years apart.
That will be tough! It was sort of weird to think that Harry was supposed to be basically the same age as his parents there. Cinematically, it just would not work.
MithLuin wrote:I mostly agree with you - it was a battle, and you duel-to-kill under the circumstances. Sure. Even 'good guys' aren't above being vindictive after being repressed, and in reality, the Malfoys would not have been 'ignored' in the aftermath.
Yeah, torturing people is a really bad idea if there is any chance that they'll get ahold of you later. Again, WWII offers such great examples: the fury with which freed peoples turned on German agents and informers was intense. Rowling keeps a little of this: consider what Hermione does to the traitor Marrietta in Order. In real life, it would be hanging often preceded by torturing.
MithLuin wrote:But JKR didn't write about that part of it. And I was suggesting that she left that out on purpose, because it's one thing to say, "everyone must fight to save Hogwarts!" and play up the romantic side of resistence/defense type fighting.
I think that you are on the mark. Also, by keeping the battle in the background, she kept the attention on Harry's concerns. That is where the story was. It offered some other narrative perks. For example, we got to behold death in several different ways, and that was pretty powerful.
MithLuin wrote:She does not pull the punches, nor does she pretend that you can 'play' at fighting. (Well, maybe a little....the galloping desks charging come to mind...)
One thing I liked about that is that it showed how many ways wizards would have to kill and maim each other. There tends to be a lot of focus on the Unforgivable Curses: however, stampeding people with desks would in some ways be a crueler death (being crushed is a slow and painful death), and having spines jutting out of your entire body (as Percy does to Thicknesse) can hardly be much more pleasant than Cruciatus. Many of the spells that we see throughout the series could be devastating if applied to different parts of the anatomy.
MithLuin wrote:Yes, a careful reader realizes that if you Stun someone who is flying high above the ground....they're dead. But that is still background detail.
And it also is, I think, a part of English "Character" that some are lamenting as lost. (That is to what I was referring above.) The English character is supposed to take things with a stiff upper lip. Sure, killing someone in battle probably is not pleasant: but you do not whine about it. You did your duty then: do your duty now and carry on.

A lot of HP fans are convinced that Harry could not kill at all without harming his soul, and that therefore none of those Death Eaters could have died. However, she's pretty clear through Dumbledore that killing is not killing: if only the killer can know how it will affect his/her soul, then context is (as always in Potterverse!) everything. Rowling clearly has no problems with killing in the defense of others or even self.
MithLuin wrote:All is not fair in war. Some things are crossing the line. Kids dueling kids to the death is...problematic. Even if according to wizarding law, 17-yr-olds are adults, they aren't in the real world. And there is no getting around the idea that these are, in fact, high school students....
But kids that age fought in WWI and WWII. They were lionized in the UK and the US for lying about their ages and sneaking into battle. They were lionized in Germany and Japan, too. Rowling tipped her hat to that with both Ginny and Colin. Again, to those who remember the WWII spirit, the "kids" who went to battle are heroes: they shouldered the responsibilities of adults.

And, let's face it: war is no better on a 18 year old or 21 year old etc. than on a 16 or 17 year old: wars are pretty scarring on them, too! Whatever the temperment is that one needs to handle war, it's probably based on factors well before one's 16th birthday.
MithLuin wrote:Early 40's? I don't think that's possible.
Well, I goofed! It should be mid 40's. Of course, I am probably making a huge mistake in assuming that Rowling did her sums, but....

Arthur & Molly got married right out of school (~18) during the early days of the war. Bill was born around the early days of the war, so they had him pretty quickly. Bill is 9 years older than Ron, which means that Ron would have been born when his parents were in their late 20's. 17-18 years later, they would be in their mid-40's. (I had early 40's in my head from the early part of the book.)

Assuming that Hermione's mother would have been in her early-mid 30's when Hermione was born (a common age for a professional woman to have a kid in the late 1970's: women who had kids at younger ages usually were not allowed back into professional life), then they would have been a bit older than Ron's parents. Of course, this really applies only to Hermione's mother: for some reason I have this idea in my head that they met in postgraduate school, but there is absolutely no basis for that other than that I've known so many couples that did!

Of course, that is the real world: Rowling probably never thought about it in much detail. She never even gave names to Hermione's parents!

MithLuin wrote:Book!Snape is more prone to sputtering and losing his temper in a more...er...spectacular way, while movie!Snape seems calm and in control at all times. A more still-waters-run-deep anger that is more threatening and less comic. The most blatant scene of book!Snape's meltdown is the ending of PoA, when he loses his temper and shouts at (in front of?) Fudge. Rickman's Snape would never do that. (And indeed, he didn't.)
I think that there are two reasons for this. One, Snape's spectacular meltdowns typically come during scenes that are not really pertinent to the stories. (Order is the one exception: and they obviously could not resist going with Rickman's smooth fury, which is just too good for words!) Two, too many people might interpret spluttering, word-dropping, etc. as bad acting and/or directing! Movie dialogue is always much smoother than real life dialog: I mean, where else can you go so long without any misspeakings or even "ums" or "ers"????

Hey LM! Long time, no see!
User avatar
Ranger of the North

Posts: 4366
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 3:27 pm
Location: Washington D.C. and a lot of other places


Return to The Books (Other Authors)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest