here's what I thought about Harry Potter.
I'm copying and pasting my reply to someone else's post because I feel it encompasses most if not all of my thoughts. It may seem disjointed and/or hard to read...but too bad for you. Deal.
I'm finding it hard to swallow your Snape argument.
Snape needed to get all of that information to Harry, otherwise everything would have been for naught.
As well, I truly doubt that had Lily not shacked up with James she would have gone and married Snape...I don't think there can be ANY argument made about Snape and Lily that would convince me that James took Lily from him. Yes, they knew each other growing up, but his attitude towards Muggles...especially how he treated Petunia...and his Mudblood comment to Lily after she saved him from the Marauders' "Let's turn him upside down and pull down his pants" thing...there's just no way...Granted, her choice in men probably wasn't the best, considering who she ended up with...but even then, we didn't learn much about Harry's parents, no matter what we'd like to think about them, we know that Lily has green eyes, died for her son to protect him, and that back at school James was a douche and Lily and Snape knew each other from childhood.
I don't think that it's Harry's fault that Snape lost everything either. Snape brought most of this upon himself by a) joining Voldy in the first place, b) choosing to hold a childhood grudge against people who weren't even responsible for it in the first place simply by association. If anything, Harry DESERVES an explanation of why he was treated as he was by Snape. He KNEW about Harry's upbringing, he KNEW everything that had happened to him so far, yet he STILL saw nothing in Harry but his father...even WITH his green eyes.
As for true love and impetus, the moral of this entire series is that love is the most powerful magic at all. As cheesy as this sounds, of COURSE love is going to play a role in some major character who is otherwise flawed. If the guilt for playing a part in the murder of his unrequited love isn't enough to drive him, than he SHOULDN'T have ended up as he did. He should have gotten far worse.
I do agree that Hermione was basically there to provide Deus Ex Machina type things with her purse of holding and +9 I Know Shit; but, I suppose, that's better than "And then a little note came down in Rowling's handwriting saying 'Go here!'" Besides, it isn't like it's out of character for Hermione to be the one to say, "Um, this might be important. I should find a way to hold onto all of this and in a way that will make my life easier." or "Hey, I remember THIS and can deduce THIS." That is her character, for whatever that's worth.
As for the plot, yes it seemed to be a hectic and smeared plot, but I think that helps set the tone for what was going on at the time of the book.
Most of the time they were just sitting and waiting for shit to go down and they were helpless to do otherwise. They were in hiding, they couldn't just blast through populated areas and do it Rambo style. They're 17 years old high school dropouts who, besides Ron, don't know shit about the world that they live in as evidenced with their complete lack of knowledge of wizarding children's stories. People take for granted that they've spent the last 6 years for 5 months at a time in a castle. They learn magic, maybe pick up a few cultural tidbits here and there, but beyond a passable working knowledge of Diagon Alley, they are completely ignorant of the world around them. Of course they are going to have to grasp at straws. They're looking for a needle in a haystack. It's not believable for them to find what they're looking for in the first place they look. They HAVE to look in the most logical places, whether or not they're there. It is important for them to be kited around for a little bit because where would the fun be in having them find everything in one go? They may not have had everything that they do LEAD somewhere, but they certainly didn't do nothing.
As for Dumbledore, manipulative may be the right word, but I don't think the connotation is a little hazy. I don't think that much of what he did was warranted, however, I do think that in times of peril of the magnitude that Dumbledore was dealing with, be it reminiscent of his past or no, the ends justified the means. It was my sincere hope from the beginning of this series that Dumbledore not be the coddling, doddering codger that he was to begin the series. I had accepted early on that this fight was more political than anything and Dumbledore was, most likely, merely the lesser of two potentially horrific evils. And that is what I feel resulted. Dumbledore represents a character who had fallen from grace and would do anything in his power to make the world right again, regardless of the cost...which was high, but not unfair.
Lupin and Tonks were harder for me to come to terms with as characters because I never got a lock on the personalities for either of them...It wasn't until that I talked to my mom about the book yesterday that I think I have a better feel for what their characters mean.
Lupin, for all his wisdom and helpfulness that he imparted in the 3rd book, is a complete coward. He goes into hiding just as fast as everyone else did back after Lily and James died. Which makes why they made it so clear that Lupin WASN'T the secret keeper so much more clear to me. Black would have died for James and Lily...and, well, did...but he was smart enough to know that everyone else DID know that...so he secretly traded jobs with Peter...but Remus? What WOULD have happened if Remus had been found out and caught? My thought is that he might have tried to save his own skin. Also, in the third year, when his Lycanthropy was discovered, the first thing he did was run away...even before he was fired...which may or may not have happened...
I do think that this had a lot to do with being a werewolf. When your life is subject to life one month at a time, you do try to keep other bits as stable as you can make them. So in the 7th book, with Lupin and Tonks, it does make sense that he would be somewhat disoriented and manic about the whole deal.
Plus, concerning Tonks and her baby, (and this is mostly my mom talking so I'll take her word for it...) going on the basic assumption that she WANTED to have the baby. If I were her, I wouldn't have done anything that would have put either the baby OR myself in harm's way. If that meant taking the time off to make sure that the baby was okay and then re-join the battle later, okay.
I don't think that wanting to have children and protecting them by staying out of the line of fire before they are born means having to succumb to the life as a baby machine. It means that you aren't an idiot for putting yourself on the line as well as destroying what could, at some point, be the future of your line. (Which may very well have been one of Tonks' reasons for having a kid to begin with. *insert citation of pure-blood lineage here*)
Ron was never a favorite character of mine...especially after the movies where any insightful line and action that Ron had was given to Hermione instead, but for all of his faults, he too is a young boy who has no idea of how to react in these types of situations. I think that considering his past, he ended up rising to the occasion and proving that he wasn't "the stupid Weasley" that everyone makes him out to be. Looking back at the books, I think I like Ron's character a whole lot more. Between 5 older, very successful brothers, his not so easy family life, famous friend (willingly or no), Ron has a lot of shadow to stand in and it takes a lot to be able to rise up as he did throughout this book...to figure out how to open the Chamber of Secrets without Harry's help, and to overcome his fear that Harry and Hermione didn't really need him.
Take my opinions as you will.
I'm finding it hard to swallow your Snape argument.
Snape needed to get all of that information to Harry, otherwise everything would have been for naught.
As well, I truly doubt that had Lily not shacked up with James she would have gone and married Snape...I don't think there can be ANY argument made about Snape and Lily that would convince me that James took Lily from him. Yes, they knew each other growing up, but his attitude towards Muggles...especially how he treated Petunia...and his Mudblood comment to Lily after she saved him from the Marauders' "Let's turn him upside down and pull down his pants" thing...there's just no way...Granted, her choice in men probably wasn't the best, considering who she ended up with...but even then, we didn't learn much about Harry's parents, no matter what we'd like to think about them, we know that Lily has green eyes, died for her son to protect him, and that back at school James was a douche and Lily and Snape knew each other from childhood.
I don't think that it's Harry's fault that Snape lost everything either. Snape brought most of this upon himself by a) joining Voldy in the first place, b) choosing to hold a childhood grudge against people who weren't even responsible for it in the first place simply by association. If anything, Harry DESERVES an explanation of why he was treated as he was by Snape. He KNEW about Harry's upbringing, he KNEW everything that had happened to him so far, yet he STILL saw nothing in Harry but his father...even WITH his green eyes.
As for true love and impetus, the moral of this entire series is that love is the most powerful magic at all. As cheesy as this sounds, of COURSE love is going to play a role in some major character who is otherwise flawed. If the guilt for playing a part in the murder of his unrequited love isn't enough to drive him, than he SHOULDN'T have ended up as he did. He should have gotten far worse.
I do agree that Hermione was basically there to provide Deus Ex Machina type things with her purse of holding and +9 I Know Shit; but, I suppose, that's better than "And then a little note came down in Rowling's handwriting saying 'Go here!'" Besides, it isn't like it's out of character for Hermione to be the one to say, "Um, this might be important. I should find a way to hold onto all of this and in a way that will make my life easier." or "Hey, I remember THIS and can deduce THIS." That is her character, for whatever that's worth.
As for the plot, yes it seemed to be a hectic and smeared plot, but I think that helps set the tone for what was going on at the time of the book.
Most of the time they were just sitting and waiting for shit to go down and they were helpless to do otherwise. They were in hiding, they couldn't just blast through populated areas and do it Rambo style. They're 17 years old high school dropouts who, besides Ron, don't know shit about the world that they live in as evidenced with their complete lack of knowledge of wizarding children's stories. People take for granted that they've spent the last 6 years for 5 months at a time in a castle. They learn magic, maybe pick up a few cultural tidbits here and there, but beyond a passable working knowledge of Diagon Alley, they are completely ignorant of the world around them. Of course they are going to have to grasp at straws. They're looking for a needle in a haystack. It's not believable for them to find what they're looking for in the first place they look. They HAVE to look in the most logical places, whether or not they're there. It is important for them to be kited around for a little bit because where would the fun be in having them find everything in one go? They may not have had everything that they do LEAD somewhere, but they certainly didn't do nothing.
As for Dumbledore, manipulative may be the right word, but I don't think the connotation is a little hazy. I don't think that much of what he did was warranted, however, I do think that in times of peril of the magnitude that Dumbledore was dealing with, be it reminiscent of his past or no, the ends justified the means. It was my sincere hope from the beginning of this series that Dumbledore not be the coddling, doddering codger that he was to begin the series. I had accepted early on that this fight was more political than anything and Dumbledore was, most likely, merely the lesser of two potentially horrific evils. And that is what I feel resulted. Dumbledore represents a character who had fallen from grace and would do anything in his power to make the world right again, regardless of the cost...which was high, but not unfair.
Lupin and Tonks were harder for me to come to terms with as characters because I never got a lock on the personalities for either of them...It wasn't until that I talked to my mom about the book yesterday that I think I have a better feel for what their characters mean.
Lupin, for all his wisdom and helpfulness that he imparted in the 3rd book, is a complete coward. He goes into hiding just as fast as everyone else did back after Lily and James died. Which makes why they made it so clear that Lupin WASN'T the secret keeper so much more clear to me. Black would have died for James and Lily...and, well, did...but he was smart enough to know that everyone else DID know that...so he secretly traded jobs with Peter...but Remus? What WOULD have happened if Remus had been found out and caught? My thought is that he might have tried to save his own skin. Also, in the third year, when his Lycanthropy was discovered, the first thing he did was run away...even before he was fired...which may or may not have happened...
I do think that this had a lot to do with being a werewolf. When your life is subject to life one month at a time, you do try to keep other bits as stable as you can make them. So in the 7th book, with Lupin and Tonks, it does make sense that he would be somewhat disoriented and manic about the whole deal.
Plus, concerning Tonks and her baby, (and this is mostly my mom talking so I'll take her word for it...) going on the basic assumption that she WANTED to have the baby. If I were her, I wouldn't have done anything that would have put either the baby OR myself in harm's way. If that meant taking the time off to make sure that the baby was okay and then re-join the battle later, okay.
I don't think that wanting to have children and protecting them by staying out of the line of fire before they are born means having to succumb to the life as a baby machine. It means that you aren't an idiot for putting yourself on the line as well as destroying what could, at some point, be the future of your line. (Which may very well have been one of Tonks' reasons for having a kid to begin with. *insert citation of pure-blood lineage here*)
Ron was never a favorite character of mine...especially after the movies where any insightful line and action that Ron had was given to Hermione instead, but for all of his faults, he too is a young boy who has no idea of how to react in these types of situations. I think that considering his past, he ended up rising to the occasion and proving that he wasn't "the stupid Weasley" that everyone makes him out to be. Looking back at the books, I think I like Ron's character a whole lot more. Between 5 older, very successful brothers, his not so easy family life, famous friend (willingly or no), Ron has a lot of shadow to stand in and it takes a lot to be able to rise up as he did throughout this book...to figure out how to open the Chamber of Secrets without Harry's help, and to overcome his fear that Harry and Hermione didn't really need him.
Take my opinions as you will.