![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, we finished HBP and now I have time to think about it. The main thought I come away with is that I need to read it again. Heh. Not actually true. The main thought I come away with is that I need to read the whole series again.
Then I came to my senses and decided that I better talk about the book now, rather in the several months that it will take me to finish reading all the books again. *grin*
I'm going to start with Dumbledore's death.
Yes. I believe that Dumbledore is actually dead. In fact, I would be disappointed if he turns out not to be dead. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Dumbledore.
I love how he handles everything, no matter how serious, with humor and lightheartedness. The first time we really meet him, at the first sorting, his "few words" are 'Nitwit', 'Blubber', 'Oddment' and 'Tweak'. It's obvious that this lightheartedness is a natural aspect of Dumbledore's personality; not just an affectation put on in order to charm or disarm people. He uses candy as passwords to get up into his office. He enjoys a good joke or prank. He admires cleverness and ingenuity, even when he has to discipline students for inappropriate use of it. That humor is always present. Even when he and Harry are in the cave, facing the Inferi, he displays humor.
I love his ability to point out the hypocrisy and flaws in a situation with a gentle sarcasm that is never openly confrontational but that brings his point across in an undeniable way. His scenes with the Dursleys at the beginning of the book are perfect examples of this. He uses sarcasm in the way it should be used: to point out the wrongness of a situation, not to denigrate the people involved or generate laughs at their expense. In an odd sort of way, his use of sarcasm reminds me of Eeyore. Both use sarcasm in a way that points out the truth without belittling anyone. It is an ability that is both rare and underappreciated.
I love his ability to see good in everything. I love his desire to allow everyone a second chance. I love that his is willing to admit to his mistakes and flaws. I love that he can be extremely dangerous without changing who he is. I love the fact that he is not swayed by power or prestige and that he was, undoubtedly, always true to himself. I love that he is one of the most powerful wizards but never uses that power or reputation to further any selfish goals.
That said, I think he died at the end of the book. In fact, I want him to be dead and would be disappointed if he weren't.
Why? My reasons are all literary and structural, actually. JKR has set up the character so that he is powerful and knowledgeable enough to fake his own death, so I can see that possibility of that happening. I just think the story needs to have him be dead.
With Dumbledore around, everyone -- including Harry -- will be looking to Dumbledore to lead the attack on Voldemort. As long as Dumbledore is around, it will be Dumbledore and not Harry, who will be seen as the person who ultimately defeats the Dark Lord. That will be true even if Harry is the one who ends up killing Voldemort. These books are about Harry Potter and they have to be written so that Harry Potter has the one who defeats Voldemort. As interesting as it would be to have some unexpected hero pop up or some last minute revival of a previously lost champion, such things only work in O. Henry-type short stories. In novels, such a Deus Ex Machina leaves the reader feeling cheated and disappointed.
Granted, other books have had characters "die" and then return without it being a Deus Ex Machina. Lord of the Rings is the example that pops most readily to mind. We see Gandalf fall to his death locked in combat with the Balrog only to have him reappear and help our heroes in their battles against Sauron and his armies. His death and rebirth can't really be seen as Deus Ex Machina for a couple reasons.
The first is timing. Gandalf dies early in the story. Structurally speaking, his death comes at the end of the first act. While emotionally painful to the characters and readers, the loss of Gandalf isn't emotionally or structurally equivalent to the loss of Dumbledore, primarily due to the fact that it happens so early in the story. Its plot purpose is to demonstrate that death is possible and to facilitate the splitting of the fellowship. It is the first major setback that our heroes face and, while it highlights how perilous the quest is, it doesn't change the primary goal of the quest as everyone sees it: Frodo still needs to destroy the ring. Dumbledore dies at the end of the third act. As such it is the final, most devastating setback of the story. It is the point at which no one can see how it is possible to defeat Voldemort. Up to this point everyone (including Harry and the readers) have assumed that Dumbledore would be necessary to defeat Voldemort, after all he was "the only wizard the Voldemort feared" and the only one that could come close to rivaling him in power.
The return of Gandalf also comes early in the story: at the beginning of the second act. His return, while important, doesn't fundamentally alter the balance of power or radically change the chances of success. More importantly, it doesn't undo or negate any of the effects of his death. In reality, the return of Gandalf may ease the feelings of loss and despair in some of the characters but it does little to improve the overall probability of success of the quest. In fact, the person who holds the most responsibility for defeating Sauron -- Frodo -- is completely unaware of Gandalf's return. As such, Gandalf's return has absolutely no effect on him at all. If Dumbledore returns, it will be in the final moments of the complete story arc. The effect of his return will bring, by timing alone, a major shift in the balance of power. It will completely negate the emotional and plot effects of his death and it will greatly alter the probability of success in defeating Voldemort as it now stands. It is too late in the story for Dumbledore's return to be anything but Deus Ex Machina.
Dumbledore's death is a plot necessity. The same way Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn's deaths were necessary. The same way Bambi's mother had to die. Each of those deaths forced the main character to face the worst evil alone and defeat that evil by themselves.
There is also a thematic reason for having Dumbledore be dead: Voldemort has spent his entire life trying to cheat death, if Dumbledore isn't dead isn't he just doing what Voldemort is trying to accomplish? Throughout the books, Dumbledore stresses that death is not to be feared. In fact, at the end of OotP, Voldemort says "There is nothing worse than death" to which Dumbledore replies "there are things much worse than death". In HBP, Dumbledore says that (and I'm summarizing here) Voldemort's fear of death demonstrates his lack of wisdom. In writing the books, JKR makes it clear that the only way to avoid death is if a person is willing to sacrifice his/her soul.
One of the things I really love about the books is feeling I get from the writing that death isn't the end. In OotP, when Harry is desperately trying to find a loophole so that Sirius doesn't really have to be dead, Nearly-headless Nick says that the reason he's a ghost (and implies that the reason all ghosts are ghosts) is because of a fear of death. In the end, he 'chose to remain behind' with just a 'feeble imitation of life' rather than face the unknown. He also stress that very few choose to be ghosts, leaving the distinct impression that death is not the end of everything, that there is something to 'go on' to and most chose to 'go on'.
Ok, granted there is a big difference between Voldemort wanting to become 'immortal' and Dumbledore faking his death for strategic reasons. I still think that it's important to the theme of "death is not to be feared" that Dumbledore's death not be a fake out. As much as it hurts to lose Dumbledore (both plot-wise and emotionally), death itself shouldn't be negated.
Finally, there is that whole emotional element to Dumbledore's death. The last three chapters of the book detail how the characters are dealing with his death. There's Harry's growth in acceptance of Dumbledore's death (something he himself recognizes). There's the whole process of acceptance and the willingness to go on without their leader. The book takes the reader through the death of the death, through the loss and to acceptance and moving on. IMO, it reeks of reader manipulation to have this be a fake out this late in the game.
All that said (and it's a lot, isn't it?), there still is that stupid phoenix imagery when Dumbledore's body engulfed in the white flames. It could be an indication of Dumbledore's return. After all 'rising from the ashes' and all that. While I would give more credence if Dumbledore would have died in fire, I admit it is possible to see that as JKR laying the groundwork for bringing Dumbledore back. I just hope it isn't the case.
Wow. That was a very long essay, wasn't it? I didn't even touch on my thoughts of Snape or Voldemort or Harry or any of the many things I have thoughts on. Feel free to disagree, after all, I'm looking at this from a purely structural point of view.
Then I came to my senses and decided that I better talk about the book now, rather in the several months that it will take me to finish reading all the books again. *grin*
I'm going to start with Dumbledore's death.
Yes. I believe that Dumbledore is actually dead. In fact, I would be disappointed if he turns out not to be dead. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Dumbledore.
I love how he handles everything, no matter how serious, with humor and lightheartedness. The first time we really meet him, at the first sorting, his "few words" are 'Nitwit', 'Blubber', 'Oddment' and 'Tweak'. It's obvious that this lightheartedness is a natural aspect of Dumbledore's personality; not just an affectation put on in order to charm or disarm people. He uses candy as passwords to get up into his office. He enjoys a good joke or prank. He admires cleverness and ingenuity, even when he has to discipline students for inappropriate use of it. That humor is always present. Even when he and Harry are in the cave, facing the Inferi, he displays humor.
I love his ability to point out the hypocrisy and flaws in a situation with a gentle sarcasm that is never openly confrontational but that brings his point across in an undeniable way. His scenes with the Dursleys at the beginning of the book are perfect examples of this. He uses sarcasm in the way it should be used: to point out the wrongness of a situation, not to denigrate the people involved or generate laughs at their expense. In an odd sort of way, his use of sarcasm reminds me of Eeyore. Both use sarcasm in a way that points out the truth without belittling anyone. It is an ability that is both rare and underappreciated.
I love his ability to see good in everything. I love his desire to allow everyone a second chance. I love that his is willing to admit to his mistakes and flaws. I love that he can be extremely dangerous without changing who he is. I love the fact that he is not swayed by power or prestige and that he was, undoubtedly, always true to himself. I love that he is one of the most powerful wizards but never uses that power or reputation to further any selfish goals.
That said, I think he died at the end of the book. In fact, I want him to be dead and would be disappointed if he weren't.
Why? My reasons are all literary and structural, actually. JKR has set up the character so that he is powerful and knowledgeable enough to fake his own death, so I can see that possibility of that happening. I just think the story needs to have him be dead.
With Dumbledore around, everyone -- including Harry -- will be looking to Dumbledore to lead the attack on Voldemort. As long as Dumbledore is around, it will be Dumbledore and not Harry, who will be seen as the person who ultimately defeats the Dark Lord. That will be true even if Harry is the one who ends up killing Voldemort. These books are about Harry Potter and they have to be written so that Harry Potter has the one who defeats Voldemort. As interesting as it would be to have some unexpected hero pop up or some last minute revival of a previously lost champion, such things only work in O. Henry-type short stories. In novels, such a Deus Ex Machina leaves the reader feeling cheated and disappointed.
Granted, other books have had characters "die" and then return without it being a Deus Ex Machina. Lord of the Rings is the example that pops most readily to mind. We see Gandalf fall to his death locked in combat with the Balrog only to have him reappear and help our heroes in their battles against Sauron and his armies. His death and rebirth can't really be seen as Deus Ex Machina for a couple reasons.
The first is timing. Gandalf dies early in the story. Structurally speaking, his death comes at the end of the first act. While emotionally painful to the characters and readers, the loss of Gandalf isn't emotionally or structurally equivalent to the loss of Dumbledore, primarily due to the fact that it happens so early in the story. Its plot purpose is to demonstrate that death is possible and to facilitate the splitting of the fellowship. It is the first major setback that our heroes face and, while it highlights how perilous the quest is, it doesn't change the primary goal of the quest as everyone sees it: Frodo still needs to destroy the ring. Dumbledore dies at the end of the third act. As such it is the final, most devastating setback of the story. It is the point at which no one can see how it is possible to defeat Voldemort. Up to this point everyone (including Harry and the readers) have assumed that Dumbledore would be necessary to defeat Voldemort, after all he was "the only wizard the Voldemort feared" and the only one that could come close to rivaling him in power.
The return of Gandalf also comes early in the story: at the beginning of the second act. His return, while important, doesn't fundamentally alter the balance of power or radically change the chances of success. More importantly, it doesn't undo or negate any of the effects of his death. In reality, the return of Gandalf may ease the feelings of loss and despair in some of the characters but it does little to improve the overall probability of success of the quest. In fact, the person who holds the most responsibility for defeating Sauron -- Frodo -- is completely unaware of Gandalf's return. As such, Gandalf's return has absolutely no effect on him at all. If Dumbledore returns, it will be in the final moments of the complete story arc. The effect of his return will bring, by timing alone, a major shift in the balance of power. It will completely negate the emotional and plot effects of his death and it will greatly alter the probability of success in defeating Voldemort as it now stands. It is too late in the story for Dumbledore's return to be anything but Deus Ex Machina.
Dumbledore's death is a plot necessity. The same way Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn's deaths were necessary. The same way Bambi's mother had to die. Each of those deaths forced the main character to face the worst evil alone and defeat that evil by themselves.
There is also a thematic reason for having Dumbledore be dead: Voldemort has spent his entire life trying to cheat death, if Dumbledore isn't dead isn't he just doing what Voldemort is trying to accomplish? Throughout the books, Dumbledore stresses that death is not to be feared. In fact, at the end of OotP, Voldemort says "There is nothing worse than death" to which Dumbledore replies "there are things much worse than death". In HBP, Dumbledore says that (and I'm summarizing here) Voldemort's fear of death demonstrates his lack of wisdom. In writing the books, JKR makes it clear that the only way to avoid death is if a person is willing to sacrifice his/her soul.
One of the things I really love about the books is feeling I get from the writing that death isn't the end. In OotP, when Harry is desperately trying to find a loophole so that Sirius doesn't really have to be dead, Nearly-headless Nick says that the reason he's a ghost (and implies that the reason all ghosts are ghosts) is because of a fear of death. In the end, he 'chose to remain behind' with just a 'feeble imitation of life' rather than face the unknown. He also stress that very few choose to be ghosts, leaving the distinct impression that death is not the end of everything, that there is something to 'go on' to and most chose to 'go on'.
Ok, granted there is a big difference between Voldemort wanting to become 'immortal' and Dumbledore faking his death for strategic reasons. I still think that it's important to the theme of "death is not to be feared" that Dumbledore's death not be a fake out. As much as it hurts to lose Dumbledore (both plot-wise and emotionally), death itself shouldn't be negated.
Finally, there is that whole emotional element to Dumbledore's death. The last three chapters of the book detail how the characters are dealing with his death. There's Harry's growth in acceptance of Dumbledore's death (something he himself recognizes). There's the whole process of acceptance and the willingness to go on without their leader. The book takes the reader through the death of the death, through the loss and to acceptance and moving on. IMO, it reeks of reader manipulation to have this be a fake out this late in the game.
All that said (and it's a lot, isn't it?), there still is that stupid phoenix imagery when Dumbledore's body engulfed in the white flames. It could be an indication of Dumbledore's return. After all 'rising from the ashes' and all that. While I would give more credence if Dumbledore would have died in fire, I admit it is possible to see that as JKR laying the groundwork for bringing Dumbledore back. I just hope it isn't the case.
Wow. That was a very long essay, wasn't it? I didn't even touch on my thoughts of Snape or Voldemort or Harry or any of the many things I have thoughts on. Feel free to disagree, after all, I'm looking at this from a purely structural point of view.
