Gladly. What I expected to be a masterpiece suddenly turned into a failure. The dialogues were horrible, the visual explanation was also, and : [spoiler]Almost every character dies as if they were not important and as if they were extras.[/spoilers]
I admit I was kinda disappointed with the ending... I still thought the rest of it was good, at least on a par with the other books. Definitely not a failure.
Its not like any of the HP books have been masterpieces. They're all really enjoyable, and considering they're aimed mostly at children I'd hardly expect for there to be... literary devices that are particularly intricate or anything to put them into the catagory of 'masterpiece'.
And I thought the way the Ron/Hermione situation ended up was a TOTAL anti-climax personally.
Tbh I didnt really mind any of the deaths much. The one that really shocked me was [SPOILER - highlight to read]: Crabbe... and then of course Colin Creevey. I found it weird that kids were dying in a kids book..
Gender: Male Location: Past the Point of No Return
True as that is, it is still considered such. Actually, no, it was perfect for a children's book. Death's do happen in children's book. And it had the child-like ending to it. You got to really think like a child sometimes. Then you'd probably appreciate the ending.
__________________
Thank you Neha for the sig!
This years Musical: Little Shop of Horrors (sig for it hopefully coming soon)
the problem is that we were expecting much more then a clasical children book? JK has the fame of the best author of our time. yet the series ended, how should I say, very ...failure I beleive is the word
You can't very well expect every character to come out of a war alive and kicking. No, Deathly Hallows wasn't a failure. I believe it was the opposite. A success. I would have been disappointed if every character ended up living. It was like Lord of the Rings, Tolkien knew where he was going, knew that the ring would be destroyed, yet characters had to end. Rowling knew that either Potter or Voldemort would die, but there had to be death.
I would expected Potter to fianlly die! Thus the book would stand a chance to became classic like Oliver Twist, for example
Who would now read Potter? In as much as ten years the novels will be forgoten as many before. pitty It had all the chances to became a classic
Gender: Female Location: When in Doubt, Go to the Library.
I for one would like to see the rule where the main character has to die so that a book can become a classic.
However.
I agree that the epilogue felt a bit tacked on and definitely did not feel like the rest of the book did. I would have much rather had it end with Harry speaking those wise words... and fade away watching the characters ride into the sunset. After all the drama and flawed-characterness of the book proper, it was like stepping inside a fairy tale "where they all lived happily ever after" aka "all is well."
That doesn't sound like JK to me. She seems to be the type of person that knows that life doesn't end happily ever after and ending before the epilogue would have reinforced this. Ah well.
I didn't think the book was as good as its two prequels (personally, OotP will always be my favorite) but it told the story and it told it the way JK wanted to and imagined it to.
How could it be a failure if it came out the way the author wanted it to? It's not a personal failure.
How could it be a failure if it made millions upon millions? It's not a financial failure.
How could it be a failure if millions of readers had waited, read, and loved it? It's not a failure as a book.
If you think it's a failure personally - that's a very small picture. That's you and your opinion; don't apply it to the whole.
__________________
It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.
ok, i will try to take all the issues with some sort of order:
Rule: there is no such rule and these type of rules do not exist, but what exists and counts is the impression and the emotion that some one's piece of work can cause. There is no formula about successfull writing. shTo support my disapointement and the statement that cause this I would draw your attention to the following novels, think about it:
Ana Karenina, Oliver Twist, Wuthering Heights, Antigona... the list can continue
Its just an opinion and you should not take it to personal
The other corpuse of issues that you raise: only time will show who was right , the DH owns its popularity to the previuse books, but unfortunately with the happy end it does not diferentiate from the other ferry tells for kids.
The novels will be forgotten because Potter didn't Die? That is just stupid. Children will be reading the Harry potter books for generations to come. I beleive these books, with the immortalization of the movies, will become as classic and cherished as the Lord of the rings, and Narnia novels. Readers appreciate good writing. Rowling delivers very vivid, competent and deep writing. The life of a books popularity stands on the quality of the writing, not a decision that a writer makes for one of their characters.
Personally, i think Keeping Potter alive was a brave decision. I think most people were clamoring for him to die. People love to see heroes die. Many times, a hero does need to die, but Potter is not a hero. Potter was thrust into those situations and had people plotting out his life long before he even went to hogwarts. Having Potter die would make him a martyr, a hero and an instant legend. This would not have been consistent with his character or the story. Potter was not a hero and was never supposed to be perceived as one. Having Potter die would just add unecessary tragedy to a 7 book series that revolves around tragedy. It would have been redundant to kill him. Potter went through some shit, he didnt save the world, but he saved some people along the way while trying to save himself. after Hogwarts, Potter's life is very mundane when compared to what he went through, this makes his character feel even more real.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on May 10th, 2008 at 06:07 AM
Dude, Potter went through 17 years of hell. Like really, HELL. At first he had no family, and then anytime a family member by blood or stature came into his life. Potter was forced to see them die. Although, Potter liked Hogwarts more than anything at the time. I'm sure is was very harrowing to go back to a school every year where, every year someone tries to kill you and your friends. The only true happiness Potter had during those years was the happines he experienced with his friends. I think the ending was very much like real life. Many people grow up with broken childhoods, as orphan or living in a dysfunctional family. Their child hood and adolescene is very trying and filled with much violence. When they themselves, become adults, however, if they have worked hard enough in striving to have something better. They usually always obtain their goals and end up living pleasant lives where their child hood experiences fade away into memory.
I mean, i can understand why people would have expected more from the ending. I think the ending she chose should have been expected. It was the most practical, but im not saying that is good or bad. The only thing happy about the ending was that Potter accomplished his goal to survive. You dont think the epilogue was necessary?
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on May 10th, 2008 at 06:11 AM