I wanted to get this in before midnight.
All secrets will be revealed as 45-year-old children everywhere crack open their copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final installment in J.K. Rowling's rousing series.
I've read them all, and thanks to a fortuitous girlfriend scheduling convenience, I will have the opportunity to crank through the book this weekend before any cruel shitheel embarks on a drive-by shouting campaign, buzzing past bookstores and shouting "Dumbledore dies on page 576!"
Of course this, was the last book's big spoiler. (Sorry if you haven't read the book, but fuck, it's been two years already -- you obviously don't give a shit). This year everyone is consumed with the question of whether Harry dies or Snape is evil and shit. But I wanted to make sure I put this down in the blogosphere for safe-keeping before everyone else learns the obvious: Of course, Snape isn't evil. Only a child would think otherwise.
Ever since the first book, Snape has been cast as the perfect red herring -- a false villain. Harry misinterprets his efforts to save him and confounds his hatred for Harry's dead father with evil intentions. But we learn in the fifth book that Harry's dad was a cocky bully, who pestered poor, young misfit Snape in school. So who can really blame the guy for holding a grudge against his anointed son, the kid whom everyone loves and who really doesn't do a damn thing worthy of his hero status without dumb luck or someone's help? (Also, I've never understood the hero-worship of Dumbledore, who could avert every tragedy in all of these books so far by simply leveling with Harry in the beginning, instead of sitting him down at the end to explain how everything got so screwed up because he's an idiot. I mean, the guy has "Dumb" in his name.)
And sure, Snape was a Death Eater, sworn to lick the boots of He Who Shall Not Be Named Except When Convenient To People Who Don't Want to Continue This Rather Long Euphemistic Pseudonym. But Dumbledore was certain of his allegiance, and I think very obviously betting his life on it.
Ah, but Snape killed Dumbledore, right? We were there when the weakened old wizard begged Snape to spare his life, weren't we? Yeah. Duh. But everything we know about Rowling's misdirecting style of mystery writing tells us exactly how that fatal scene really played out. And though I don't have as strong an opinion about how much else will work out in the final book, I'm willing to bet a night's worth of butterbeers on this: Dumbledore wasn't begging Snape to spare his life. He was begging Snape to kill him.
The reasons for this will likely be tortuous, much like the endless bits of exposition that plague all of these books. Pages and pages of someone (usually Dumbledore) explaining things to the point we don't even bother to notice how many holes needed such filling. But the only way Dumbledore's death will make any satisfying narrative sense will be if he and Snape had an ironclad agreement that if it came down to it, he would have to kill Dumbledore to protect his standing with Voldemort. Now Voldemort can hardly question his loyalty. And now Snape can help Harry and the Order of Phoenix defeat Voldemort from the inside.
Dumbledore has been wrong from time to time, but never about things he says he is sure of. And he said he was sure of Snape's true allegiance. He bet his life on it, which -- and all you Islamist fuckbags should note -- is how a true martyr operates, by giving his life for the success of a greater cause without slaughtering innocents.
In the endgame, Snape might very well pay for his treachery against the Dark Lord with his own life, making him the truest tragic figure in the entire series. Here is a guy who overcame his honest and valid hatred of a man and his son and sacrificed his own life so that the boy and the greater good will live on.
So stop all this Snape speculation. It's so obvious, even stupid-ass Harry might figure it out.
All secrets will be revealed as 45-year-old children everywhere crack open their copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final installment in J.K. Rowling's rousing series.
I've read them all, and thanks to a fortuitous girlfriend scheduling convenience, I will have the opportunity to crank through the book this weekend before any cruel shitheel embarks on a drive-by shouting campaign, buzzing past bookstores and shouting "Dumbledore dies on page 576!"
Of course this, was the last book's big spoiler. (Sorry if you haven't read the book, but fuck, it's been two years already -- you obviously don't give a shit). This year everyone is consumed with the question of whether Harry dies or Snape is evil and shit. But I wanted to make sure I put this down in the blogosphere for safe-keeping before everyone else learns the obvious: Of course, Snape isn't evil. Only a child would think otherwise.
Ever since the first book, Snape has been cast as the perfect red herring -- a false villain. Harry misinterprets his efforts to save him and confounds his hatred for Harry's dead father with evil intentions. But we learn in the fifth book that Harry's dad was a cocky bully, who pestered poor, young misfit Snape in school. So who can really blame the guy for holding a grudge against his anointed son, the kid whom everyone loves and who really doesn't do a damn thing worthy of his hero status without dumb luck or someone's help? (Also, I've never understood the hero-worship of Dumbledore, who could avert every tragedy in all of these books so far by simply leveling with Harry in the beginning, instead of sitting him down at the end to explain how everything got so screwed up because he's an idiot. I mean, the guy has "Dumb" in his name.)
And sure, Snape was a Death Eater, sworn to lick the boots of He Who Shall Not Be Named Except When Convenient To People Who Don't Want to Continue This Rather Long Euphemistic Pseudonym. But Dumbledore was certain of his allegiance, and I think very obviously betting his life on it.
Ah, but Snape killed Dumbledore, right? We were there when the weakened old wizard begged Snape to spare his life, weren't we? Yeah. Duh. But everything we know about Rowling's misdirecting style of mystery writing tells us exactly how that fatal scene really played out. And though I don't have as strong an opinion about how much else will work out in the final book, I'm willing to bet a night's worth of butterbeers on this: Dumbledore wasn't begging Snape to spare his life. He was begging Snape to kill him.
The reasons for this will likely be tortuous, much like the endless bits of exposition that plague all of these books. Pages and pages of someone (usually Dumbledore) explaining things to the point we don't even bother to notice how many holes needed such filling. But the only way Dumbledore's death will make any satisfying narrative sense will be if he and Snape had an ironclad agreement that if it came down to it, he would have to kill Dumbledore to protect his standing with Voldemort. Now Voldemort can hardly question his loyalty. And now Snape can help Harry and the Order of Phoenix defeat Voldemort from the inside.
Dumbledore has been wrong from time to time, but never about things he says he is sure of. And he said he was sure of Snape's true allegiance. He bet his life on it, which -- and all you Islamist fuckbags should note -- is how a true martyr operates, by giving his life for the success of a greater cause without slaughtering innocents.
In the endgame, Snape might very well pay for his treachery against the Dark Lord with his own life, making him the truest tragic figure in the entire series. Here is a guy who overcame his honest and valid hatred of a man and his son and sacrificed his own life so that the boy and the greater good will live on.
So stop all this Snape speculation. It's so obvious, even stupid-ass Harry might figure it out.
5 comments:
I agree with all your points. Maybe the biggest transformation for Harry will be that he actually figures something out without having Dumbledore explain it all to him.
And I hope Rowling doesn't try to pull some Obi-Wan shit and have Dumbledore's ghost speak to Harry. It's bad enough how many other ideas she's already "borrowed" from other great fantasy stories.
What about the other question you mentioned - does Harry die? Well I think that you need to take the same perspective as you did with Snape - go with the obvious. The answer is not actually about whether Harry will die, but will Voldemort? Of course Voldemort has to die, otherwise how/why would the series end?
But Harry could die as well, perhaps while battling Voldemort. Or he could live, after having sustained some near-fatal injuries that have him looking like Bruce Willis at the end of any Die Hard movie. The point is that Harry's fate doesn't really matter - only Voldemort's.
I still want to read how it all goes down, then in two years watch all the key chapters on the big screen.
Dumbledore is likely to talk to Harry through one of those magical paintings at Hogwarts, no? Someone's got to tell the kid to get himself to the Dagobah System.
And I don't think Harry will die. He's The Boy Who Lived. Even with all the tragedy, he's lived a, literally, charmed life. And his story should begin and end with his learning to live with loss and continue to love -- which is the book's lame excuse for a subtext.
It's obvious that Harry's greatest assets in fighting Voldemort will be his friends. So maybe Ron (please, please let it be Ron) will bite the dust before the pyrrhic victory. Or maybe Ginny, Harry's one true love he cannot protect despite his best efforts.
But sure as shit Voldemort falls. And I like the idea of Snape dying to save Harry. That would make for the most satisfying development.
I never read any of the books nor will I ever...I don't read books. I find them all long and boring and just words. I need to see things on screen that is done in 90 to 180 minutes where I can sit back with a bucket of popcorn and enjoy myself.
Reading a 500 book all weekend? Sounds like a boring weekend to me. Are you on going on line to wait at a bookstore all night or do you have a connection to get your hands on the book?
I watched 2/3rds of the first movie a few times but each time, I fell asleep watching. Thus, I was bored and have had no interest to see the other movies. I'm sure I'll have to watch them one day but for now, I could care less if Harry dies or lives on. To me, a Star Wars fan, this Potter stuff is BORING.
Yeah, we get it Birdman. Nothing can touch Star Wars. Books are full of words. 12 million Americans reading this book this weekend are fools that could be lounging on beach chairs with their eyes nice and closed. But thanks for chiming in!
And as for my predictions after finishing the book this morning....
******MAJOR SPOILER ALERT******
********************************
I was right, of course. Though I would have prefered it if Snape died more in a moment of climactic sacrifice instead of almost as an afterthought before the fact. And the whole Pensieve device has grown awfully tiresome. The entire sixth book was basically one big flashback and now this one tries to pull some kind of big "Usual Suspects"-type reveal that would only shock someone who hasn't thought much about it. Or children, which I suppose, is who remain the target audience, even if many have grown up since the first book.
Overall though, it was an amazingly satisfying conclusion to a perfectly flawed and engrossing series. Left me with more than a few tears.
None of you guys have read this yet...or likely ever will. Who am I talking to?
I stopped reading your last comment when I saw the spoiler alert. And now that I have finally finished the book, I can come back to it.
I was almost right - Harry did die so that Voldemort could be killed, but then he came back again (seems a little Matrix-esque to me).
The only way for Snape to reveal his secrets to Harry was through the pensieve thing, but I guess in retrospect it does seems a little too easy to just tie up a bunch of loose ends with an non-stop barrage of quick flahsbacks. Still, at least she ties them up, and nicely I might add.
The one word I hear from almost everyone who's commented about the book is "satisfying" - which I think is the best thing you can say after 7 books and all those years, and I wholeheartedly agree. Which is more than I can say about the Star Wars prequels.
Post a Comment