Death is a part of Harry Potter. We all know that. The entire series of novels is set into motion by the brutal murder of Lily and James Potter and an almost unspeakably ruthless act -- the attempt to murder an infant, just over a year old.
I would argue, however, that it is the matter-of-fact, entirely needless murder of Cedric Diggory at the end of book four that provides the series its most brutal moment.
Diggory does not need to die. Rowling could have spared him simply by having him touch the Tri-Wizard Cup a split second later than Harry and get left behind in the maze while Harry is hurtled hundreds of miles to the graveyard to face the Dark Lord. Voldemort could have spared Diggory simply by ordering Wormtail to stun him and forget about him, rather than kill him. Wormtail could have refused to kill him, could have chosen to stun Diggory simply because his murder is such a brutal, needless, cruel act.
Diggory's death is not necessary to the rest of the plot of The Goblet of Fire. After Harry brings his body back to Hogwarts, we see one immediate scene as the shock of Diggory's murder spreads through the crowd and sends his father into grieving hysterics, but no plot point, no future development hinges on Diggory being dead.
Diggory's death is important, however, and perhaps my comment above that "Diggory does not need to die" is not entirely accurate. Cedric dies because Rowling needs to send a clear, ruthless message -- to the characters who are on the side of good in the books and to us as readers -- that Voldemort is back and as brutal as he ever was. With this scene in the graveyard, everything changes.
We are no longer reading simple young-adult fiction where, if death occurs, it occurs off stage, it is crucial to the plot and it occurs for a reason. No, we're reading stories about the most evil sorcerer the world has ever seen, under whose rule death is a common-place, everyday thing, death occurs as often and as casually as the arrival of the owl post, the teaching of classes, the eating of meals.
When Voldemort, still in his almost powerless, infant form, hisses to Wormtail, "Kill the spare," the universe changes. We, as readers, learn that Rowling will pull no punches from here on out. Evil will be evil in every sense of the word. And we learn that Voldemort's cruelty knows no bounds. He will kill with impunity, almost without thought, certainly without remorse. And finally, we learn that Voldemort's followers will carry out his most cruel, most senseless orders without question, without consideration of morality.
And the word "spare" is important. It hits us like a hammer. In the Dark Lord's mind, Cedric Diggory is not a young man, filled with hope of a bright future, kind, funny, handsome, beloved by his family and his friends... he is a spare part to the story, an accidental element that must be swept aside for Voldemort to achieve his goals.
In the French translation, Voldemort hisses "Tue l'autre". This translates, as far as I understand, as "Kill the other". It makes sense, sure, but I'm not sure it has the impact of "Kill the spare." I'm not sure it sends the same ruthless message.
Showing posts with label The Dark Lord. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Dark Lord. Show all posts
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Rowling shows great care in orchestrating her climactic scenes
As I finished reading The Chamber of Secrets (actually, La chambre des secrets, since I read it in French) the other day, it occurred to me that J.K. was very careful to ensure that Harry faced the final confrontation in each novel alone.
And, since I have been highly critical of the fact that the film makers did everything they could to make the ending of the final movie, The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, a duel between Harry and Voldemort with the fate of the entire world hanging in the balance (where I felt Jo made it very clear 1) that the battle was not Harry's alone and 2) that the tide was actually turning in favour of the defenders of Good before Harry duels the Dark Lord), I wondered why Rowling took such great pains to separate our hero from Ron and Hermione at the end of each of the first two books.
I doubt the following summary is necessary for anyone who is into Harry Potter enough to be reading this bug but, for anyone not familiar with Books 1 and 2, here is what happens:
In The Philosopher's Stone, Hermione and Ron are with Harry when he first sets out to get past all of the protections around the Stone to save it from the antagonist but Ron drops off after he gets injured in the chess match while Hermione solves the potions riddle for Harry only to be forced to turn back since there is only enough of the move-forward potion for one. Harry is, clearly, the one who must go on (as Hermione points out) so he is alone for the final battle.
Meanwhile, in The Chamber of Secrets, Hermione has already been petrified, leaving Harry and Ron to use the information she has collected to find the Chamber and save Ginny. But Harry loses Ron when Ron's wand backfires on Lockhart and causes a cave-in that can't be shifted in tie to save Ginny. Harry is past the wall of rubble; Ron trapped behind it with the befuddled Lockhart. Once again, Harry must face the final battle alone.
The question is: why?
Rowling makes it a clear point of focus as the novels move on that, while Harry is at the centre of the storm that is Lord Voldemort's return, the battle against the Dark Lord and his minions is shared by everyone. Hermione and Ron, in particular, show continued dedication to the battle throughout the rest of the books.
I thought about this question for some time and I think the answer is quite clear. And fairly simple.
When Harry finally faces Voldemort with a companion in tow (Cedric Diggory in the fourth book, The Goblet of Fire), Voldemort is cold-blooded about what he requires his disciples to do with anyone who shows up other than Harry. While the Dark Lord's instructions with regard to Harry are clear and consistent ("Leave him to me"), Voldemort does not hesitate in the graveyard in book 4 when Harry shows up with a friend: "Kill the spare," he orders and Diggory is summarily dismissed.
Rowling recognised in the first two books that it was in the Dark Lord's character simply to kill anyone who gets in his way. She could not permit Hermione or Ron to be there at the end because they would die instantly. Not only would that be an incredible waste of these wonderful characters, it would be a great deal too much for the young readers in the target audience to bear.
As a result, she arranged things to ensure that Harry met Voldemort alone in Books 1 and 2. Book 3 involved only the Dark Lord's henchman and not You Know Who himself, so Hermione and Ron could take part in the climax of the story.
Then, when Jo felt her readers were mature enough, she ends Book 4 with the death of Harry's companion at the climactic scene. And she makes darn sure it's not one of her readers' beloved inner circle.
And, since I have been highly critical of the fact that the film makers did everything they could to make the ending of the final movie, The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, a duel between Harry and Voldemort with the fate of the entire world hanging in the balance (where I felt Jo made it very clear 1) that the battle was not Harry's alone and 2) that the tide was actually turning in favour of the defenders of Good before Harry duels the Dark Lord), I wondered why Rowling took such great pains to separate our hero from Ron and Hermione at the end of each of the first two books.
I doubt the following summary is necessary for anyone who is into Harry Potter enough to be reading this bug but, for anyone not familiar with Books 1 and 2, here is what happens:
In The Philosopher's Stone, Hermione and Ron are with Harry when he first sets out to get past all of the protections around the Stone to save it from the antagonist but Ron drops off after he gets injured in the chess match while Hermione solves the potions riddle for Harry only to be forced to turn back since there is only enough of the move-forward potion for one. Harry is, clearly, the one who must go on (as Hermione points out) so he is alone for the final battle.
Meanwhile, in The Chamber of Secrets, Hermione has already been petrified, leaving Harry and Ron to use the information she has collected to find the Chamber and save Ginny. But Harry loses Ron when Ron's wand backfires on Lockhart and causes a cave-in that can't be shifted in tie to save Ginny. Harry is past the wall of rubble; Ron trapped behind it with the befuddled Lockhart. Once again, Harry must face the final battle alone.
The question is: why?
Rowling makes it a clear point of focus as the novels move on that, while Harry is at the centre of the storm that is Lord Voldemort's return, the battle against the Dark Lord and his minions is shared by everyone. Hermione and Ron, in particular, show continued dedication to the battle throughout the rest of the books.
I thought about this question for some time and I think the answer is quite clear. And fairly simple.
When Harry finally faces Voldemort with a companion in tow (Cedric Diggory in the fourth book, The Goblet of Fire), Voldemort is cold-blooded about what he requires his disciples to do with anyone who shows up other than Harry. While the Dark Lord's instructions with regard to Harry are clear and consistent ("Leave him to me"), Voldemort does not hesitate in the graveyard in book 4 when Harry shows up with a friend: "Kill the spare," he orders and Diggory is summarily dismissed.
Rowling recognised in the first two books that it was in the Dark Lord's character simply to kill anyone who gets in his way. She could not permit Hermione or Ron to be there at the end because they would die instantly. Not only would that be an incredible waste of these wonderful characters, it would be a great deal too much for the young readers in the target audience to bear.
As a result, she arranged things to ensure that Harry met Voldemort alone in Books 1 and 2. Book 3 involved only the Dark Lord's henchman and not You Know Who himself, so Hermione and Ron could take part in the climax of the story.
Then, when Jo felt her readers were mature enough, she ends Book 4 with the death of Harry's companion at the climactic scene. And she makes darn sure it's not one of her readers' beloved inner circle.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Jo, you really should watch yourself (or at least listen)
If you have had enough of the Voldemort pronunciation issue, you may want to move on. Because I'm talking about it again.
The whole question arose, according to CNN, when one tweeter tweeted “the "t" is silent in Voldemort, according to @jk_rowling” and Jo tweeted back “but I'm pretty sure I'm the only person who pronounces it that way.”
One clever responder immediately pointed out that actor Jim Dale also pronounced Voldermort without the "t" in the audio books of the first two novels. Then, of course, he saw the movies and immediately starting saying "Vole-de-morte".
Since, however, I am a bit of a detail nerd, I decided to check to see if Jo Rowling really has always pronounced Voldemort with a silent "t". I headed to the internet and started watching as many of the interviews with the author as I could find.
The first thing that struck me, to be honest, was how seldom (if ever) she actually says the name at all. I watched interview after interview and, while she mentions Harry, Hermione, and Ron quite often, I still haven't found an interview in which she mentions the Dark Lord by his chosen name.
Is it possible that even J.K. Rowling has "fear of the name"?
That being said, I then decided a better approach might be to review videos of Rowling reading from the books themselves. Even if she avoids saying "Voldemort" when she is just chatting, there was no way she would bleep out his name when reading from a novel.
That's when I came across this video on Youtube. It's Jo reading the first chapter of The Deathly Hallows on the evening of the book's release. She is at the British Museum, reading to a huge crowd of children.
It's the perfect passage to test our question. After all, the entire first chapter of seventh novel involves Voldemort and his most trusted Death Eaters discussing plans to ambush Harry Potter.
And, as she reads her way through Chapter 1, Rowling says "Voldemort" with a very distinct "t" sound on the end. "Vole - de - morte".
Hmmm..... The person who claims to be the only person who pronounces Voldemort with a silent "t" actually pronounces the name with quite a strong "t" sound at the end. At least on this particular occasion.
The whole question arose, according to CNN, when one tweeter tweeted “the "t" is silent in Voldemort, according to @jk_rowling” and Jo tweeted back “but I'm pretty sure I'm the only person who pronounces it that way.”
One clever responder immediately pointed out that actor Jim Dale also pronounced Voldermort without the "t" in the audio books of the first two novels. Then, of course, he saw the movies and immediately starting saying "Vole-de-morte".
Since, however, I am a bit of a detail nerd, I decided to check to see if Jo Rowling really has always pronounced Voldemort with a silent "t". I headed to the internet and started watching as many of the interviews with the author as I could find.
The first thing that struck me, to be honest, was how seldom (if ever) she actually says the name at all. I watched interview after interview and, while she mentions Harry, Hermione, and Ron quite often, I still haven't found an interview in which she mentions the Dark Lord by his chosen name.
Is it possible that even J.K. Rowling has "fear of the name"?
That being said, I then decided a better approach might be to review videos of Rowling reading from the books themselves. Even if she avoids saying "Voldemort" when she is just chatting, there was no way she would bleep out his name when reading from a novel.
That's when I came across this video on Youtube. It's Jo reading the first chapter of The Deathly Hallows on the evening of the book's release. She is at the British Museum, reading to a huge crowd of children.
It's the perfect passage to test our question. After all, the entire first chapter of seventh novel involves Voldemort and his most trusted Death Eaters discussing plans to ambush Harry Potter.
And, as she reads her way through Chapter 1, Rowling says "Voldemort" with a very distinct "t" sound on the end. "Vole - de - morte".
Hmmm..... The person who claims to be the only person who pronounces Voldemort with a silent "t" actually pronounces the name with quite a strong "t" sound at the end. At least on this particular occasion.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Fly from Death? Steal from Death?
I am still brooding over the question of how to pronounce the Dark Lord's chosen name: Voldemort.
I will accept as a basic assumption J.K. Rowling's assertion that the name should be pronounced as a French word with no "t" sound at the end.
That makes sense to me. I can't say I was smart enough to catch it when I first read the books -- I have called him "Vole-de-morte" in my head from the beginning -- but it makes sense to me now.
But, as I asked several posts ago, now that we have the pronunciation of the last syllable of the name correct, how do we pronounce the first syllable?
I pointed out that there seem to be two options for that first syllable (and that each option has been used in the films by different characters): "Vole", with a long "o" sound, and "Vol", with an "a" sound to rhyme with "ball" or "tall" or "call".
I prefer the former, personally, but which is correct?
Jo says it's a French word and should be pronounced as a French person would.
So I spoke to a colleague of mine who is both a native French speaker (born and raised in France) and a big Harry Potter fan.
Interesting conversation.
First, she said that, because she is French, she pronounces the name "Vole-de-more".
Perfect. Question answered. Proper pronunciation established.
Then she said she had never noticed that, in the movies, the name's last syllable was always pronounced "morte" and its first syllable was sometimes pronounced "Vall" and sometimes "Vole". She simply heard it pronounced the way she would say it herself.
Interesting.
We then talked about what the name means in French. If you break it down into its three syllables, you will find that it is made up of three French words:
"vol", which can mean either to "steal" or to "fly";
"de", which means "from" or "of"; and
"mort", which means to "die" or "death".
Wow. My friend had never thought that through. "She's brilliant, isn't she?" she said with a smile, thinking of how carefully J.K. had developed the name.
I would have to agree. The Dark Lord's chosen name means either "fly from death" or "steal from death".
And that's exactly what he has attempted to do throughout his entire life: to escape death, to cheat death, to steal from death.
And that's exactly what the Deathly Hallows are about, aren't they:
The Cloak is meant to allow its bearer to escape Death;
The Stone is meant to allow its bearer to steal from Death (by bringing people back); and
The Wand is meant to allow its bearer to defeat/cheat Death.
Cool cool cool. So cool, it's almost scary.
I will accept as a basic assumption J.K. Rowling's assertion that the name should be pronounced as a French word with no "t" sound at the end.
That makes sense to me. I can't say I was smart enough to catch it when I first read the books -- I have called him "Vole-de-morte" in my head from the beginning -- but it makes sense to me now.
But, as I asked several posts ago, now that we have the pronunciation of the last syllable of the name correct, how do we pronounce the first syllable?
I pointed out that there seem to be two options for that first syllable (and that each option has been used in the films by different characters): "Vole", with a long "o" sound, and "Vol", with an "a" sound to rhyme with "ball" or "tall" or "call".
I prefer the former, personally, but which is correct?
Jo says it's a French word and should be pronounced as a French person would.
So I spoke to a colleague of mine who is both a native French speaker (born and raised in France) and a big Harry Potter fan.
Interesting conversation.
First, she said that, because she is French, she pronounces the name "Vole-de-more".
Perfect. Question answered. Proper pronunciation established.
Then she said she had never noticed that, in the movies, the name's last syllable was always pronounced "morte" and its first syllable was sometimes pronounced "Vall" and sometimes "Vole". She simply heard it pronounced the way she would say it herself.
Interesting.
We then talked about what the name means in French. If you break it down into its three syllables, you will find that it is made up of three French words:
"vol", which can mean either to "steal" or to "fly";
"de", which means "from" or "of"; and
"mort", which means to "die" or "death".
Wow. My friend had never thought that through. "She's brilliant, isn't she?" she said with a smile, thinking of how carefully J.K. had developed the name.
I would have to agree. The Dark Lord's chosen name means either "fly from death" or "steal from death".
And that's exactly what he has attempted to do throughout his entire life: to escape death, to cheat death, to steal from death.
And that's exactly what the Deathly Hallows are about, aren't they:
The Cloak is meant to allow its bearer to escape Death;
The Stone is meant to allow its bearer to steal from Death (by bringing people back); and
The Wand is meant to allow its bearer to defeat/cheat Death.
Cool cool cool. So cool, it's almost scary.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Mispronunciation mortification
How do you pronounce the Dark Lord's adopted name?
Do you say Vole-de-morte (with the "t" pronounced)?
Or Vole-de-more (no "t")?
Apparently, J.K. Rowling has now announced that the proper pronunciation is the latter: more, not morte.
She has also said that she might be the only one on earth who actually gets it right but, to be honest, I expect that every French speaking person in the world pronounces "mort" as we English speakers would pronounce "more".
And, of course, Jim Dale uses the no "t" pronunciation in his readings of at least the first two novels in the audiobook versions. It would seem that, after the first couple of movies came out, which probably make the hard "t" version popular, Dale felt compelled to follow the crowd and say "morte".
I hate to admit it (especially now that Jo has said it's wrong) but I tend to say "Vole-de-morte" when I mention his name (or, in my head, when I read it). Oh well, I can't be right all the time.
And I am quite tempted to call up every video interview with J.K. that's available online to see if she really does (or did) use the no "t" pronunciation.
With the "more"/"morte" pronunciation question finally clarified, I have to ask: Do you pronounce the first syllable with a long or short "o" sound: Vole or Vol?
Maybe it's questions like these that are the real reason we should call him "You Know Who" or "He Who Must Not Be Named" or "the Dark Lord"! Because nobody really knows how to say his adopted name!
Do you say Vole-de-morte (with the "t" pronounced)?
Or Vole-de-more (no "t")?
Apparently, J.K. Rowling has now announced that the proper pronunciation is the latter: more, not morte.
She has also said that she might be the only one on earth who actually gets it right but, to be honest, I expect that every French speaking person in the world pronounces "mort" as we English speakers would pronounce "more".
And, of course, Jim Dale uses the no "t" pronunciation in his readings of at least the first two novels in the audiobook versions. It would seem that, after the first couple of movies came out, which probably make the hard "t" version popular, Dale felt compelled to follow the crowd and say "morte".
I hate to admit it (especially now that Jo has said it's wrong) but I tend to say "Vole-de-morte" when I mention his name (or, in my head, when I read it). Oh well, I can't be right all the time.
And I am quite tempted to call up every video interview with J.K. that's available online to see if she really does (or did) use the no "t" pronunciation.
With the "more"/"morte" pronunciation question finally clarified, I have to ask: Do you pronounce the first syllable with a long or short "o" sound: Vole or Vol?
Maybe it's questions like these that are the real reason we should call him "You Know Who" or "He Who Must Not Be Named" or "the Dark Lord"! Because nobody really knows how to say his adopted name!
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Rowling's missed opportunity in The Half-Blood Prince
I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out why I think that The Half-Blood Prince is the weakest of the seven Harry Potter novels. What is it about this book that simply does not work?
Sure, I've read the critics who disregard THBP as merely a set-up for the grand finale. And I think there's some merit to that argument.
But I think there's something more.
And I also think that, despite its limitations, THBP also has a lot to offer, a lot of really interesting scenes and great writing.
My analysis is by no means complete at this point but, if I had to say today what most concerns me about this novels, I'd have to say that it's the fact that, for the first and only time in the Harry Potter series, the main line of action in the book does not involve Harry, Hermione and Ron directly. In fact, the novel's central plot -- Draco Malfoy's desperate attempt to kill Dumbledore and redeem his family in the eyes of the Dark Lord -- happens almost entirely "off stage", so to speak.
It's an odd choice for Rowling and, in my opinion, a missed opportunity.
J.K. shows, in the first two chapters, that she is willing to permit her narrative voice to venture far away from our hero, Harry. In fact, Harry does not even appear in "The Other Minister" and "Spinner's End" -- in these opening chapters, Rowling presents the story from the perspective of the Muggle Prime Minister and of Narcissa Malfoy and Severus Snape.
What I don't understand is why she then commits herself so firmly and irrevocably to Harry's point of view from the third chapter onward. Especially when the central tale is with Draco, an interesting and enigmatic character who finds himself facing an extremely difficult challenge.
Wouldn't you have loved to have experienced the entire main plot of the sixth book through the eyes of Draco Malfoy, to understand the pressures he is under, the mixture of fear, anger, and desperation he must feel as he tries to figure out a way to accomplish the task set before him?
Wouldn't that have been a fascinating way to see the magical world in the Harry Potter series?
And wouldn't you have been much more caught up in the building suspense of the main plot of the book?
My point is that Rowling set herself a very difficult task in THBP: to try to keep her reader enthralled in the story without actually permitting us to experience in any real, ongoing way the development of that story.
And I think she, for the most part, failed.
I don't think the brief glimpses we see of Draco, the tiny hints to which we become privy throughout the novel, the suspicions of Harry that are brought to our attention but dismissed by everyone else are sufficient to keep us riveted by that story line.
And I don't think that other things Rowling offers in THBP -- the quidditch subplot, the romantic story lines, even the investigation of Voldemort's childhood -- are sufficient to make up for the lack of a gripping main plot.
Sure, I've read the critics who disregard THBP as merely a set-up for the grand finale. And I think there's some merit to that argument.
But I think there's something more.
And I also think that, despite its limitations, THBP also has a lot to offer, a lot of really interesting scenes and great writing.
My analysis is by no means complete at this point but, if I had to say today what most concerns me about this novels, I'd have to say that it's the fact that, for the first and only time in the Harry Potter series, the main line of action in the book does not involve Harry, Hermione and Ron directly. In fact, the novel's central plot -- Draco Malfoy's desperate attempt to kill Dumbledore and redeem his family in the eyes of the Dark Lord -- happens almost entirely "off stage", so to speak.
It's an odd choice for Rowling and, in my opinion, a missed opportunity.
J.K. shows, in the first two chapters, that she is willing to permit her narrative voice to venture far away from our hero, Harry. In fact, Harry does not even appear in "The Other Minister" and "Spinner's End" -- in these opening chapters, Rowling presents the story from the perspective of the Muggle Prime Minister and of Narcissa Malfoy and Severus Snape.
What I don't understand is why she then commits herself so firmly and irrevocably to Harry's point of view from the third chapter onward. Especially when the central tale is with Draco, an interesting and enigmatic character who finds himself facing an extremely difficult challenge.
Wouldn't you have loved to have experienced the entire main plot of the sixth book through the eyes of Draco Malfoy, to understand the pressures he is under, the mixture of fear, anger, and desperation he must feel as he tries to figure out a way to accomplish the task set before him?
Wouldn't that have been a fascinating way to see the magical world in the Harry Potter series?
And wouldn't you have been much more caught up in the building suspense of the main plot of the book?
My point is that Rowling set herself a very difficult task in THBP: to try to keep her reader enthralled in the story without actually permitting us to experience in any real, ongoing way the development of that story.
And I think she, for the most part, failed.
I don't think the brief glimpses we see of Draco, the tiny hints to which we become privy throughout the novel, the suspicions of Harry that are brought to our attention but dismissed by everyone else are sufficient to keep us riveted by that story line.
And I don't think that other things Rowling offers in THBP -- the quidditch subplot, the romantic story lines, even the investigation of Voldemort's childhood -- are sufficient to make up for the lack of a gripping main plot.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Problems with Priori Incantatem and the wand that killed Cedric
Here's where it all started: Harry's dream/vision in Divination class in the middle of The Goblet of Fire.
Although I have always believed that these "visions" of Harry's, in which he was able to see what Voldemort was up to, were real, I realized that J.K. was about to give me absolute proof of the fact when I got to the end of the book.
When Harry's wand, you see, forces Voldemort's wand into Priori Incantatem in their duel in the graveyard, the Dark Lord's wand "regurgitate[s] spells it has performed -- in reverse. The most recent first... and then those which preceded it". That's how Dumbledore explains the effect.
So I knew, if Harry's vision of Voldemort's using the Cruciatus curse on Wormtail was actually true, we should see that spell emerge from Voldemort's wand in the graveyard.
And if the Cruciatus curse did not emerge from the wand, then either Harry's visions were not real or... Rowling simply forgot to include the torture curse when she wrote the scene.
I was very pleased, then, when my test worked and confirmed that Harry's visions were real. The first curse to emerge from Voldemort's wand was described as "screams of pain", which would be the Cruciatus Curse the Dark Lord had just used on Harry, then Wormtail's new hand, then "more shouts of pain" (Voldemort's torture of Wormtail to test his wand), then Cedric, and then more screams of pain (which would likely be the curse I was watching for: Voldemort's punishment of Wormtail that was depicted in Harry's Divination-Class vision).
Cool. So the visions were real. I already believed that they were but this confirmation was nice to have.
Unfortunately, I discovered several new problems through my careful examination of the Priori Incantatem effect on Voldemort's wand.
First and most importantly, Voldemort's wand did not apparently cast the curse that killed Cedric Diggory. As you will recall, just after Harry and Cedric arrive in the graveyard, Wormtail approaches carrying a terrifying bundle. Before the two boys even understand what's happening, "a high, cold voice" says "Kill the spare".
The cold, high voice is Voldemort, still barely alive, giving orders from inside the bundle. And then, "A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the night: 'Avada Kedavra!'"
That second voice is Wormtail's -- he casts the spell that kills Cedric Diggory.
Perhaps Wormtail was using Voldemort's wand at that point, you suggest.
Perhaps. But there are three arguments against that:
First, Rowling makes no suggestion that Wormtail changes wands before he performs several other feats of magic soon after killing Cedric, including the Lumos charm, the spell that creates the cords that bind Harry to the gravestone and the several bits of magic involved in preparing the cauldron for Voldemort. Yet none of those spells emerge from Voldemort's wand under the Priori Incantatem effect.
Second, it is very clearly established in The Deathly Hallows that Voldemort is protective of his own wand. He even mocks Lucius Malfoy when Lucius dares to believe that the Dark Lord might trade his own wand for Lucius', rather than simply taking it.
Third, and most compelling, when Voldemort recovers his full, adult body in the graveyard, Rowling indulges in a very careful, very detailed description of that recovery. She tells us that Wormtail gives the Dark Lord a robe from the bundle he had used to carry Voldemort into the graveyard. She describes Voldemort's careful examination of his recovered body in great detail.
And then... she says, "Voldemort slipped one of those unnaturally long-fingered hands into a deep pocket, and drew out a wand."
Until that point in time, the Dark Lord's wand had been hidden deep inside the bundle of robes.
So, I think we can agree, Voldemort's wand did not kill Cedric Diggory. So Cedric should not have emerged from the wand under the Priori Incantatem effect. And Cedric never should have been in a position to ask Harry to take his body back to his parents.
It was a lovely scene, no doubt, but it makes no sense at all in the context.
That's not all. There appears to be another inconsistency in the Priori Incantatem scene.
I believe that it is well established that, when the Dark Lord came to Godric's Hollow to kill Harry in the very beginning of the entire tale, Voldemort first killed Harry's father and then offered Harry's mother the chance to live if she would simply step aside and allow Voldemort to kill the baby.
Lily Potter refuses and dies attempting to protect Harry. This selfless act provides Harry with the ancient magic that allows him to survive Voldemort's curse.
I honestly cannot recall where the passages are found in the seven books that confirm this version of the events but certainly the films present this version very clearly.
So why, if Priori Incantatem effect causes a wand to "regurgitate spells it has performed -- in reverse. The most recent first... and then those which preceded it", does James Potter emerge from Voldemort's wand before Lily does?
Lily died last and, according to Dumbledore's explanation of the effect, should have emerged first. This is not so bit a problem as the whose-wand-killed-Cedric-Diggory conundrum above but it is still an error in the writing.
Although I have always believed that these "visions" of Harry's, in which he was able to see what Voldemort was up to, were real, I realized that J.K. was about to give me absolute proof of the fact when I got to the end of the book.
When Harry's wand, you see, forces Voldemort's wand into Priori Incantatem in their duel in the graveyard, the Dark Lord's wand "regurgitate[s] spells it has performed -- in reverse. The most recent first... and then those which preceded it". That's how Dumbledore explains the effect.
So I knew, if Harry's vision of Voldemort's using the Cruciatus curse on Wormtail was actually true, we should see that spell emerge from Voldemort's wand in the graveyard.
And if the Cruciatus curse did not emerge from the wand, then either Harry's visions were not real or... Rowling simply forgot to include the torture curse when she wrote the scene.
I was very pleased, then, when my test worked and confirmed that Harry's visions were real. The first curse to emerge from Voldemort's wand was described as "screams of pain", which would be the Cruciatus Curse the Dark Lord had just used on Harry, then Wormtail's new hand, then "more shouts of pain" (Voldemort's torture of Wormtail to test his wand), then Cedric, and then more screams of pain (which would likely be the curse I was watching for: Voldemort's punishment of Wormtail that was depicted in Harry's Divination-Class vision).
Cool. So the visions were real. I already believed that they were but this confirmation was nice to have.
Unfortunately, I discovered several new problems through my careful examination of the Priori Incantatem effect on Voldemort's wand.
First and most importantly, Voldemort's wand did not apparently cast the curse that killed Cedric Diggory. As you will recall, just after Harry and Cedric arrive in the graveyard, Wormtail approaches carrying a terrifying bundle. Before the two boys even understand what's happening, "a high, cold voice" says "Kill the spare".
The cold, high voice is Voldemort, still barely alive, giving orders from inside the bundle. And then, "A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the night: 'Avada Kedavra!'"
That second voice is Wormtail's -- he casts the spell that kills Cedric Diggory.
Perhaps Wormtail was using Voldemort's wand at that point, you suggest.
Perhaps. But there are three arguments against that:
First, Rowling makes no suggestion that Wormtail changes wands before he performs several other feats of magic soon after killing Cedric, including the Lumos charm, the spell that creates the cords that bind Harry to the gravestone and the several bits of magic involved in preparing the cauldron for Voldemort. Yet none of those spells emerge from Voldemort's wand under the Priori Incantatem effect.
Second, it is very clearly established in The Deathly Hallows that Voldemort is protective of his own wand. He even mocks Lucius Malfoy when Lucius dares to believe that the Dark Lord might trade his own wand for Lucius', rather than simply taking it.
Third, and most compelling, when Voldemort recovers his full, adult body in the graveyard, Rowling indulges in a very careful, very detailed description of that recovery. She tells us that Wormtail gives the Dark Lord a robe from the bundle he had used to carry Voldemort into the graveyard. She describes Voldemort's careful examination of his recovered body in great detail.
And then... she says, "Voldemort slipped one of those unnaturally long-fingered hands into a deep pocket, and drew out a wand."
Until that point in time, the Dark Lord's wand had been hidden deep inside the bundle of robes.
So, I think we can agree, Voldemort's wand did not kill Cedric Diggory. So Cedric should not have emerged from the wand under the Priori Incantatem effect. And Cedric never should have been in a position to ask Harry to take his body back to his parents.
It was a lovely scene, no doubt, but it makes no sense at all in the context.
That's not all. There appears to be another inconsistency in the Priori Incantatem scene.
I believe that it is well established that, when the Dark Lord came to Godric's Hollow to kill Harry in the very beginning of the entire tale, Voldemort first killed Harry's father and then offered Harry's mother the chance to live if she would simply step aside and allow Voldemort to kill the baby.
Lily Potter refuses and dies attempting to protect Harry. This selfless act provides Harry with the ancient magic that allows him to survive Voldemort's curse.
I honestly cannot recall where the passages are found in the seven books that confirm this version of the events but certainly the films present this version very clearly.
So why, if Priori Incantatem effect causes a wand to "regurgitate spells it has performed -- in reverse. The most recent first... and then those which preceded it", does James Potter emerge from Voldemort's wand before Lily does?
Lily died last and, according to Dumbledore's explanation of the effect, should have emerged first. This is not so bit a problem as the whose-wand-killed-Cedric-Diggory conundrum above but it is still an error in the writing.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Making sense of the Goblet's plot
A small thought. Voldemort required the blood of an enemy to be brought back to life. He desperately wanted that enemy to be Harry. So he needed Harry's blood.
If that's all he needed, why did he go to such ridiculous (and risky) lengths to have Barty Crouch Jr. shepherd Harry into and through the entire Tri=wizard Tournament just to get him to the graveyard in Little Hangleton at the end of The Goblet of Fire?
Why not just have Crouch siphon off some blood and be done with it?
I know, I know. That would kind of kill the whole plot of the book. If all the Dark Lord required was Harry's blood and it was so easy to obtain, he didn't need to attack Mad-Eye Moody, he didn't need to interfere with the entire Tournament, he didn't need Crouch to sneak Harry's name into the Cup, etc. etc. etc.
Not much of a book, sure, but at least it would have made sense.
If that's all he needed, why did he go to such ridiculous (and risky) lengths to have Barty Crouch Jr. shepherd Harry into and through the entire Tri=wizard Tournament just to get him to the graveyard in Little Hangleton at the end of The Goblet of Fire?
Why not just have Crouch siphon off some blood and be done with it?
I know, I know. That would kind of kill the whole plot of the book. If all the Dark Lord required was Harry's blood and it was so easy to obtain, he didn't need to attack Mad-Eye Moody, he didn't need to interfere with the entire Tournament, he didn't need Crouch to sneak Harry's name into the Cup, etc. etc. etc.
Not much of a book, sure, but at least it would have made sense.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Wondering about Mr. Weasley's wonderful Ford Anglia
What ever happened to Mr. Weasley's car?
If I recall correctly (and I haven't quite gotten there in my re-reading of The Chamber of Secrets), the enchanted Ford Anglia that carried Harry and Ron to Hogwarts and rescued them from Aragog's family disappears into the Forbidden Forest late in that novel.
But what happens to it then?
I have to admit, I'm quite surprised that J.K. didn't find some way to bring it back one more time in one of the later novels, at least to give us some hint of how things turn out for this memorable vehicle.
I loved that car. It starts off all innocent as simply a vehicle magically bewitched to fly. Then we find out it is remarkably spacious inside. Then it flies all the way to Hogarts on a single tank of gas (gas?). Finally, its full personality comes out when it flings the boys and their belongings out and escapes the Whomping Willow on its own.
We shouldn't be surprised when this gritty little car comes back to save Harry and Ron from the kingdom of the spiders. That's one feisty automobile.
I wonder what became of it. Certainly Voldemort didn't tame it when he and his Death Eaters took over the Forest in Book Seven. It makes no appearance as a slave to the Dark Lord.
I like to think it took off to the seaside, found a nice garage and lived out its life in peace. What do you think?
If I recall correctly (and I haven't quite gotten there in my re-reading of The Chamber of Secrets), the enchanted Ford Anglia that carried Harry and Ron to Hogwarts and rescued them from Aragog's family disappears into the Forbidden Forest late in that novel.
But what happens to it then?
I have to admit, I'm quite surprised that J.K. didn't find some way to bring it back one more time in one of the later novels, at least to give us some hint of how things turn out for this memorable vehicle.
I loved that car. It starts off all innocent as simply a vehicle magically bewitched to fly. Then we find out it is remarkably spacious inside. Then it flies all the way to Hogarts on a single tank of gas (gas?). Finally, its full personality comes out when it flings the boys and their belongings out and escapes the Whomping Willow on its own.
We shouldn't be surprised when this gritty little car comes back to save Harry and Ron from the kingdom of the spiders. That's one feisty automobile.
I wonder what became of it. Certainly Voldemort didn't tame it when he and his Death Eaters took over the Forest in Book Seven. It makes no appearance as a slave to the Dark Lord.
I like to think it took off to the seaside, found a nice garage and lived out its life in peace. What do you think?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Harry wouldn't be Harry without the Dark Lord
How do you think Harry would have turned out if there had been no Voldemort to tear his life apart? if he had been raised by his parents rather than by the Dursleys?
I'm not sure he would have turned out all that well.
Harry spends a lot of time across the seven novels wondering about what his life would have been like if his parents had lived, if he had grown up in a happy home with his mother and father, without a scar, perhaps even with a brother or sister or two as part of his life.
On the other hand, Albus Dumbledore spends a lot of time throughout the seven books telling Harry that it is precisely the fact that he is who he is, that he has a great capacity for love and little or no inclination to focus on himself, to be selfish and self-centred, that makes him so uniquely qualified to overcome the challenges that he faces.
Even as early as book one, The Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore gambles on Harry's innate goodness and selflessness in making sure that the Stone can be acquired from the Mirror only by one who wishes to possess it but not use it.
When Voldemort attempts to inhabit Harry's mind and body in book five, The Order of the Phoenix, it is Harry's great capacity to love that makes his possession intolerable to the Dark Lord.
And, as Dumbledore so carefully explains in King's Cross at the end of The Deathly Hallows, Harry's goodness makes him worthy of uniting the Hallows in a manner that Dumbledore himself failed.
My point is, Harry becomes this unusually selfless and caring person, this person with such an enormous capacity to love others and put their needs above his own, as a product of his childhood spent in the cold, harsh household of the Dursleys. Had he not gone through the trauma of that experience, would he really be the person so worthy of taking Voldemort down time and again?
I'm not so sure. After all, look at the people who would have been around to influence him in that alternative, early life. James Potter was no saint as a child and young man. In fact, we learn in Book Six that Harry's father was a somewhat foppish, arrogant bully while at Hogwarts and that his godfather, Sirius, was a vain, idle young man who looked upon the world with a boredom verging on complete dismissal of those around him, but for his chosen few.
Would Lily, Harry's mother, whose virtue is never really questioned, have been able to exert sufficient influence on Harry to stop him from becoming as aggressive and self-centred a young man as his father once was?
I doubt it.
So we end up with J.K.'s ultimate irony: Voldemort did more than mark Harry as his equal when he murdered James and Lily and left the lightning scar on baby Harry's forehead; the Dark Lord created the circumstances that would ensure Harry gained the very qualities (selflessness and a great capacity for love and self-sacrifice) that would make Harry worthy of overcoming the challenges that his difficult life would present him and ultimately defeating the Dark Lord.
I'm not sure he would have turned out all that well.
Harry spends a lot of time across the seven novels wondering about what his life would have been like if his parents had lived, if he had grown up in a happy home with his mother and father, without a scar, perhaps even with a brother or sister or two as part of his life.
On the other hand, Albus Dumbledore spends a lot of time throughout the seven books telling Harry that it is precisely the fact that he is who he is, that he has a great capacity for love and little or no inclination to focus on himself, to be selfish and self-centred, that makes him so uniquely qualified to overcome the challenges that he faces.
Even as early as book one, The Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore gambles on Harry's innate goodness and selflessness in making sure that the Stone can be acquired from the Mirror only by one who wishes to possess it but not use it.
When Voldemort attempts to inhabit Harry's mind and body in book five, The Order of the Phoenix, it is Harry's great capacity to love that makes his possession intolerable to the Dark Lord.
And, as Dumbledore so carefully explains in King's Cross at the end of The Deathly Hallows, Harry's goodness makes him worthy of uniting the Hallows in a manner that Dumbledore himself failed.
My point is, Harry becomes this unusually selfless and caring person, this person with such an enormous capacity to love others and put their needs above his own, as a product of his childhood spent in the cold, harsh household of the Dursleys. Had he not gone through the trauma of that experience, would he really be the person so worthy of taking Voldemort down time and again?
I'm not so sure. After all, look at the people who would have been around to influence him in that alternative, early life. James Potter was no saint as a child and young man. In fact, we learn in Book Six that Harry's father was a somewhat foppish, arrogant bully while at Hogwarts and that his godfather, Sirius, was a vain, idle young man who looked upon the world with a boredom verging on complete dismissal of those around him, but for his chosen few.
Would Lily, Harry's mother, whose virtue is never really questioned, have been able to exert sufficient influence on Harry to stop him from becoming as aggressive and self-centred a young man as his father once was?
I doubt it.
So we end up with J.K.'s ultimate irony: Voldemort did more than mark Harry as his equal when he murdered James and Lily and left the lightning scar on baby Harry's forehead; the Dark Lord created the circumstances that would ensure Harry gained the very qualities (selflessness and a great capacity for love and self-sacrifice) that would make Harry worthy of overcoming the challenges that his difficult life would present him and ultimately defeating the Dark Lord.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Introducing Bellatrix Lestrange
I just love the way J.K. introduces us to Bellatrix Lestrange, a Death Eater who would go on to become one of the key (and most memorable) new characters of the final three novels.
Rowling draws our attention to Ms. Lestrange slowly, gently, almost soothingly. She gives us significant information about the character but, in each instance, only in passing. Rowling introduces Bellatrix to us in such subtle ways that we almost miss the introduction.
And an important introduction it is.
First, we hear only the last name, and plural. The Lestranges. Mentioned in passing as being among the Death Eaters locked up in Azkaban. No first names, no descriptions. Just another name in a list.
Then comes Harry's visit to the Pensieve in Dumbldore's office, wherein he witnesses a series of hearings of the Wizard Court, trials of accused Death Eaters that took place in the months after Voldemort's fall.
I believe it is the third such trial. The Dementors escort four people into the court room to be tried and all our attention is focused, by virtue of our interest in Barty Crouch and his family, on the last of them: the boy.
Here is how Rowling describes the four:
"There was a thickset man who stared blankly up at Crouch, a thinner more nervous-looking man, whose eyes darted around the crowd, a woman, with thick, shining dark hair, and heavily hooded eyes, who was sitting in the chained chair as though it were a throne, and a boy in his late teens..."
It's a wonderfully simple, yet vivid description of the woman we will later come to know well: Bellatrix Lestrange, with her thick, shining dark hair, her heavily hooded eyes and her pride and certainty in her absolute devotion to the Dark Lord and his purposes.
The focus remains, however, on young Barty Crouch, interrupted only briefly by Bellatrix's defiant declaration of her devotion to Voldemort when the Dementors come to escort them all to Azkaban.
In that scene, we learn that the four are accused of torturing Neville's parents into incoherence using the Cruciatus curse. That means that Rudolphus Lestrange, Bellatrix's husband, must be one of the other two people in the group -- either the thickset man with the blank look or the thinner, more nervous man -- and yet we learn very little further about him throughout the final three novels. Bellatrix outshines him in this scene just as she will do the rest of the way.
And then, finally, we hear about the Lestranges from the Dark Lord himself. In the graveyard, as he surveys the Death Eaters who have returned to him, he encounters a gap in the circle.
"The Lestranges should stand here," he says, "But they are entombed in Azkaban. They were faithful. They went to Azkaban rather than renounce me... when Azkaban is broken open, the Lestranges will be honoured beyond their dreams."
But Voldemort has more on his mind at that point. His comments on the Lestranges are lost amid his interactions with all the other Death Eaters and, more especially, his ensuing duel with Harry Potter.
Such a quiet introduction. Such a slow build up. So masterfully written so that, every time Bellatrix makes an appearance, she is overshadowed by other characters or other events. Our attention as readers is drawn elsewhere so that we don't recognise just how important, how evil this character will become.
Rowling draws our attention to Ms. Lestrange slowly, gently, almost soothingly. She gives us significant information about the character but, in each instance, only in passing. Rowling introduces Bellatrix to us in such subtle ways that we almost miss the introduction.
And an important introduction it is.
First, we hear only the last name, and plural. The Lestranges. Mentioned in passing as being among the Death Eaters locked up in Azkaban. No first names, no descriptions. Just another name in a list.
Then comes Harry's visit to the Pensieve in Dumbldore's office, wherein he witnesses a series of hearings of the Wizard Court, trials of accused Death Eaters that took place in the months after Voldemort's fall.
I believe it is the third such trial. The Dementors escort four people into the court room to be tried and all our attention is focused, by virtue of our interest in Barty Crouch and his family, on the last of them: the boy.
Here is how Rowling describes the four:
"There was a thickset man who stared blankly up at Crouch, a thinner more nervous-looking man, whose eyes darted around the crowd, a woman, with thick, shining dark hair, and heavily hooded eyes, who was sitting in the chained chair as though it were a throne, and a boy in his late teens..."
It's a wonderfully simple, yet vivid description of the woman we will later come to know well: Bellatrix Lestrange, with her thick, shining dark hair, her heavily hooded eyes and her pride and certainty in her absolute devotion to the Dark Lord and his purposes.
The focus remains, however, on young Barty Crouch, interrupted only briefly by Bellatrix's defiant declaration of her devotion to Voldemort when the Dementors come to escort them all to Azkaban.
In that scene, we learn that the four are accused of torturing Neville's parents into incoherence using the Cruciatus curse. That means that Rudolphus Lestrange, Bellatrix's husband, must be one of the other two people in the group -- either the thickset man with the blank look or the thinner, more nervous man -- and yet we learn very little further about him throughout the final three novels. Bellatrix outshines him in this scene just as she will do the rest of the way.
And then, finally, we hear about the Lestranges from the Dark Lord himself. In the graveyard, as he surveys the Death Eaters who have returned to him, he encounters a gap in the circle.
"The Lestranges should stand here," he says, "But they are entombed in Azkaban. They were faithful. They went to Azkaban rather than renounce me... when Azkaban is broken open, the Lestranges will be honoured beyond their dreams."
But Voldemort has more on his mind at that point. His comments on the Lestranges are lost amid his interactions with all the other Death Eaters and, more especially, his ensuing duel with Harry Potter.
Such a quiet introduction. Such a slow build up. So masterfully written so that, every time Bellatrix makes an appearance, she is overshadowed by other characters or other events. Our attention as readers is drawn elsewhere so that we don't recognise just how important, how evil this character will become.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Pondering the value of the Deathly Hallows to Book 7
I've had several conversations recently about the final novel and the real value of the Deathly Hallows to the whole Harry Potter story.
One respected friend suggested to me that, while she enjoyed the introduction of the mythic Deathly Hallows to the stories, she felt that J.K. ended up rushing the final couple of Horcruxes to make room and time for the Hallows.
Another respected friend said she felt that the final novel would have been just as good without the whole Deathly Hallow hoopla, since, in her opinion, the Deathly Hallows seemed like a late addition and ultimately added nothing at all to the story.
Here are my thoughts.
I feel that the final novel was about Harry proving himself to be worthy of the Deathly Hallows (in a way that Albus Dumbledore was not) and, therefore, the right person to defeat Voldemort. The novel clearly shows Harry to be torn between pursuing the Hallows and finding the remaining Horcruxes, a tension that is only finally resolved at Shell Cottage when Harry chooses to speak to Griphook first, thus allowing Voldemort to reach the Elder Wand before him.
As a result, I think the Deathly Hallows were incredibly important to Rowling's plan for both plot and character. Harry had to prove himself by choosing to follow a path that would lead to the death of Voldemort rather than pursuing the Hallows which would protect him from death. It is important, furthermore, that the Dark Lord chases the Elder Wand with a panicked obsession but proves to know nothing about the other Hallows, showing his limitations in seeing no value in what he would consider to be mere children's stories.
That being said, I agree that the final novel does sacrifice some detail in the pursuit and destruction of the final horcruxes (the destruction of Hufflepuff's Cup is not even shown 'on-screen' in the novel; we are merely told about it later), a development which I find takes away from the effectiveness of the book.
Further, I think it would have been more effective and convincing, as my second friend suggests, if Rowling had managed to incorporate some references to the Deathly Hallows, or at least their symbol, into the earlier novels. For example, Viktor Krum could have been shown confronting a Durmstrang student for wearing the symbol in The Goblet of Fire, rather than simply telling Harry about such an incident in the final novel.
I also find it hard to forget that, when Harry first opens up the parcel containing his father's Invisibility Cloak, Ron exclaims that such cloaks are "really rare", not one of a kind. This suggests to me that J.K. did not, at that time, have the Deathly Hallows in mind. The Invisibility Cloak was merely a valuable rarity, not a legendary item.
Wouldn't it have been great if Ron had told Harry, at that very early point, that one of the children's stories his mother used to read to him discussed an Invisibility Cloak? Now that would have been amazing evidence of Rowling's careful planning.
One respected friend suggested to me that, while she enjoyed the introduction of the mythic Deathly Hallows to the stories, she felt that J.K. ended up rushing the final couple of Horcruxes to make room and time for the Hallows.
Another respected friend said she felt that the final novel would have been just as good without the whole Deathly Hallow hoopla, since, in her opinion, the Deathly Hallows seemed like a late addition and ultimately added nothing at all to the story.
Here are my thoughts.
I feel that the final novel was about Harry proving himself to be worthy of the Deathly Hallows (in a way that Albus Dumbledore was not) and, therefore, the right person to defeat Voldemort. The novel clearly shows Harry to be torn between pursuing the Hallows and finding the remaining Horcruxes, a tension that is only finally resolved at Shell Cottage when Harry chooses to speak to Griphook first, thus allowing Voldemort to reach the Elder Wand before him.
As a result, I think the Deathly Hallows were incredibly important to Rowling's plan for both plot and character. Harry had to prove himself by choosing to follow a path that would lead to the death of Voldemort rather than pursuing the Hallows which would protect him from death. It is important, furthermore, that the Dark Lord chases the Elder Wand with a panicked obsession but proves to know nothing about the other Hallows, showing his limitations in seeing no value in what he would consider to be mere children's stories.
That being said, I agree that the final novel does sacrifice some detail in the pursuit and destruction of the final horcruxes (the destruction of Hufflepuff's Cup is not even shown 'on-screen' in the novel; we are merely told about it later), a development which I find takes away from the effectiveness of the book.
Further, I think it would have been more effective and convincing, as my second friend suggests, if Rowling had managed to incorporate some references to the Deathly Hallows, or at least their symbol, into the earlier novels. For example, Viktor Krum could have been shown confronting a Durmstrang student for wearing the symbol in The Goblet of Fire, rather than simply telling Harry about such an incident in the final novel.
I also find it hard to forget that, when Harry first opens up the parcel containing his father's Invisibility Cloak, Ron exclaims that such cloaks are "really rare", not one of a kind. This suggests to me that J.K. did not, at that time, have the Deathly Hallows in mind. The Invisibility Cloak was merely a valuable rarity, not a legendary item.
Wouldn't it have been great if Ron had told Harry, at that very early point, that one of the children's stories his mother used to read to him discussed an Invisibility Cloak? Now that would have been amazing evidence of Rowling's careful planning.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Subtlety and elegance as Bellatrix meets her end
There's a wonderful moment near the end of The Deathly Hallows where Harry, caught midway between two duels in the Great Hall, hears a laugh, sees a look of surprise and disbelief on the face of Bellatrix Lestrange and knows she's about to die.
Harry knows because the laugh and the look echo Sirius Black's behaviour just before he was killed by Bellatrix's curse in The Order of the Phoenix.
It's a wonderful moment and beautifully written. I remember having shivers the first time I read the passage and realised that Molly Weasley was about to strike a deathblow to Voldemort's support. And, in doing so, would force the final confrontation between Harry and the Dark Lord.
Harry recognises that Bellatrix is about to die in time to cast a protective charm over Molly before Voldemort has a chance to curse her. Harry then emerges from beneath his Invisibility Cloak to the surprise and delight of the Hogwarts fighters and to the dismay of the Dark Lord.
I mention this now because I have been thinking a lot about the way the filmmakers chose to rewrite Rowling's ending and all the wonderful moments that have been lost as a result. This is, indeed, one of them, as is the moment that Voldemort finally dies, a moment of ultimate mundanity (is that a word?) that serves as the perfect end of the Dark Lord.
I've struggled to understand why the film's drawn out duel scenes and its commitment to making the battle a singular event between Harry and Voldemort bothers me so much.
The term I've used so often in the past to describe what is lost in the movie version is "subtlety" and I just can't seem to find a better one. Rowling wrote a subtle, elegant final battle, filled with nuance and depth.
The film's climax is more of a steamroller: big, slow and, in the end, unexciting. Lacking in depth or subtlety. Empty of meaning, devoid of soul.
I am coming to recognise that there exists in the world of Harry Potter fandom a significant group that has only watched (and loved) the films but has never read all of the books. Most, in fact, have read the first two or three novels but, once the books got longer, more complex, more adult, these people gave up the reading.
I urge members of this group of fans to try again. Start at the beginning but commit yourself to reading all seven novels from start to finish. Immerse yourself in Rowling's world in its pure, unadulterated form. Get to know the characters to a level you simply cannot know them through the movies.
But, most of all, enjoy the many wonderful moments of subtlety and elegance that the films simply do not, cannot capture.
Harry knows because the laugh and the look echo Sirius Black's behaviour just before he was killed by Bellatrix's curse in The Order of the Phoenix.
It's a wonderful moment and beautifully written. I remember having shivers the first time I read the passage and realised that Molly Weasley was about to strike a deathblow to Voldemort's support. And, in doing so, would force the final confrontation between Harry and the Dark Lord.
Harry recognises that Bellatrix is about to die in time to cast a protective charm over Molly before Voldemort has a chance to curse her. Harry then emerges from beneath his Invisibility Cloak to the surprise and delight of the Hogwarts fighters and to the dismay of the Dark Lord.
I mention this now because I have been thinking a lot about the way the filmmakers chose to rewrite Rowling's ending and all the wonderful moments that have been lost as a result. This is, indeed, one of them, as is the moment that Voldemort finally dies, a moment of ultimate mundanity (is that a word?) that serves as the perfect end of the Dark Lord.
I've struggled to understand why the film's drawn out duel scenes and its commitment to making the battle a singular event between Harry and Voldemort bothers me so much.
The term I've used so often in the past to describe what is lost in the movie version is "subtlety" and I just can't seem to find a better one. Rowling wrote a subtle, elegant final battle, filled with nuance and depth.
The film's climax is more of a steamroller: big, slow and, in the end, unexciting. Lacking in depth or subtlety. Empty of meaning, devoid of soul.
I am coming to recognise that there exists in the world of Harry Potter fandom a significant group that has only watched (and loved) the films but has never read all of the books. Most, in fact, have read the first two or three novels but, once the books got longer, more complex, more adult, these people gave up the reading.
I urge members of this group of fans to try again. Start at the beginning but commit yourself to reading all seven novels from start to finish. Immerse yourself in Rowling's world in its pure, unadulterated form. Get to know the characters to a level you simply cannot know them through the movies.
But, most of all, enjoy the many wonderful moments of subtlety and elegance that the films simply do not, cannot capture.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Movie Harry wouldn't have been safe at the Burrow(s)
The Blu Ray/DVD is coming out in one week. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, will be available in stores on November 11. So exciting!
Seeing that advertisements for the new discs has gotten me thinking again about the film versions of The Deathly Hallows and the many ways in which they strayed from the original novel.
And here's one difference that has been bothering me, mainly because it creates in my mind a significant inconsistency within the film narrative itself.
In the novel, J.K. takes great pains to establish that the plan to remove Harry from Privet Drive involves the creation of many different Harrys, each of which will be taken by a member of the Order to a different safe house. Each Harry will then travel by port key to the Burrow. Harry and Hagrid, in fact, barely escape Voldemort by entering the safe zone established around the home of Ted Tonks, Dora's father. From there, Harry and Hagrid travel to the Burrow to meet the others.
Even if Voldemort is able to distinguish the real Harry from the fakes, as he does in both the book and the movie, his efforts to find and capture Harry will be frustrated by the fact that he will not know to which of the many possible safe houses Harry has been moved and the fact that each of those safe houses is magically protected. In other words, it will take him a great deal of time and energy to track Harry down.
In a time-saving measure, the film version edits out the extra step. Instead of scattering to different safe houses, all of the Harrys and their escorts are told by Mad-Eye to "head for the Burrows" as they prepare to take off.
Outside of the fact that the name of the Weasley household has changed, this revised plan creates a real problem: since all of the Harrys went to the Burrow, Voldemort therefore knows that the real Harry will be at the Burrow. It will be the first place Voldemort lays seige to in his search for Harry.
Sure, the Burrow is magically defended but, as the Dark Lord proves later in the battle of Hogwarts, even the most powerful of magical protection cannot hold Voldemort off for long. Hogwarts' formidable defenses crumble within minutes once Vodelmort joins the assault. We can't expect the defenses around the Burrow to last any longer.
So how is that Movie Harry is able to spend several peaceful days at the Burrow before its defenses finally fail?
Seeing that advertisements for the new discs has gotten me thinking again about the film versions of The Deathly Hallows and the many ways in which they strayed from the original novel.
And here's one difference that has been bothering me, mainly because it creates in my mind a significant inconsistency within the film narrative itself.
In the novel, J.K. takes great pains to establish that the plan to remove Harry from Privet Drive involves the creation of many different Harrys, each of which will be taken by a member of the Order to a different safe house. Each Harry will then travel by port key to the Burrow. Harry and Hagrid, in fact, barely escape Voldemort by entering the safe zone established around the home of Ted Tonks, Dora's father. From there, Harry and Hagrid travel to the Burrow to meet the others.
Even if Voldemort is able to distinguish the real Harry from the fakes, as he does in both the book and the movie, his efforts to find and capture Harry will be frustrated by the fact that he will not know to which of the many possible safe houses Harry has been moved and the fact that each of those safe houses is magically protected. In other words, it will take him a great deal of time and energy to track Harry down.
In a time-saving measure, the film version edits out the extra step. Instead of scattering to different safe houses, all of the Harrys and their escorts are told by Mad-Eye to "head for the Burrows" as they prepare to take off.
Outside of the fact that the name of the Weasley household has changed, this revised plan creates a real problem: since all of the Harrys went to the Burrow, Voldemort therefore knows that the real Harry will be at the Burrow. It will be the first place Voldemort lays seige to in his search for Harry.
Sure, the Burrow is magically defended but, as the Dark Lord proves later in the battle of Hogwarts, even the most powerful of magical protection cannot hold Voldemort off for long. Hogwarts' formidable defenses crumble within minutes once Vodelmort joins the assault. We can't expect the defenses around the Burrow to last any longer.
So how is that Movie Harry is able to spend several peaceful days at the Burrow before its defenses finally fail?
Friday, September 30, 2011
Getting to know the Dark Lord
Ever since my online conversation with Anonymous, I've been thinking a lot about Voldemort, his life and his portrayal in both the books and movies in the Harry Potter series.
Just yesterday, I was reading the last part of Harry Potter et La Chambre des Secrets (the French translation of Rowling's second novel) and reviewed, once again, our first meeting with Tom Riddle, the Dark Lord's youthful self. What an interesting presentation that was!
Voldemort's shadow hangs over the early novels, even though his appearances in these books are brief. In The Philosopher's Stone, Harry learns of Voldemort at first from Hagrid and it is Hagrid's fearful, halting explanations of who the Dark Lord is and what he had done to Harry's parents that set the tone for Voldemort's influence on the rest of the series of books.
In the movie version of that first novel, Robbie Coltrane does a great job of capturing the fear and paranoia that continues to grip the magical world, even though ten years have passed since Voldemort disappeared. I am particularly fond of the way Coltrane spits out the word "Codswallop" in that scene. He's just so vehement about it: "Some people say he's dead. Codswallop, I say."
We catch our first glimpse of Voldemort at the end of that first book, a shrivelled face that emerges from the back of Quirrell's head in the final battle over the fabled Stone. But it is only when Harry plunges into the diary in The Chamber of Secrets that J.K. begins the wonderful process of serving up, in tantalising pieces, the story of Voldemort's younger years. The scene in the Chamber provides even more of these morsels.
The Tom Riddle of the second novel is a handsome, well-spoken, seemingly quiet young man. We learn he is an orphan, with a Muggle father and a magical mother, that he desperately hopes to escape the orphanage and that he is a remarkably brilliant student. We also learn that he is a Parselmouth and, oh yes, that he is the direct descendant of Salazar Slytherin, one of the four founders of the Hogwarts School.
This all seems very positive, especially if you can see the Slytherin relationship as merely a sign that Riddle is related to magical royalty rather than a sign that he is associated with a Muggle-hating bigot.
But then we meet the memory of Riddle in the Chamber. This Riddle is portrayed as self-centred, vindictive and judgmental. He brags about his ability to charm people in order to get his way. For the first time, we see his willingness to see others as pawns in his game, as tools to be used and cast aside. His ridicule of the 11-year-old Ginny Weasley for the childishness and banality of her diary entries, for her little girl hopes and fears, confirm him as a hateful, spiteful individual and his complete lack of concern or empathy over her impending death is a telling foreshadowing of his future behaviour.
We also get a glimpse of two weaknesses in Riddle that would continue to plague Voldemort in his adult life. The first is his fear of Dumbledore. Already as a 16 year old, Riddle struggles with the power Dumbledore seems to have over him, with his frustration over his inability to charm the brilliant wizard, to blind Dumbledore to his evil intentions. Even as he brags that Dumbledore was chased from Hogwarts by the mere memory of Voldemort, Riddle reveals his own inability to deal with Dumbledore's unique ability to stand up to him.
The second weakness we encounter is Voldemort's underestimation of the power of things that do not interest him or that he does not understand. It never occurred to Riddle that Lily Potter's decision to sacrifice herself out of love for her son would provide Harry with the protection he needed to survive Voldemort's attack. And when Harry points this fact out, Riddle both recognises and dismisses it, seeing it only as evidence that Harry alone could not have withstood him.
When Fawkes, the Phoenix, arrives to help Harry, bringing with him the Sorting Hat, Riddle mocks Harry and Dumbledore relentlessly. A song bird and a moth-eaten hat, he laughs. This is the help the great Dumbledore sends you? Even as a 16-year-old, Riddle understands only certain types of power, only certain kinds of magic. And he pays for it. The hat provides Harry with the Sword of Gryffindor, the weapon he needs to kill the Basilisk. Meanwhile, Fawkes proves invaluable, first blinding the great snake and then saving Harry from the Basilisk's venom with his healing tears.
We can't forget that one of Voldemort's greatest flaws is his inability to recognise power in forms he cannot or refuses to understand. He is all but destroyed by the power of Lily's love and sacrifice for Harry. He underestimates the power of house elves, never considering that an elf like Kreacher could infiltrate the cave and escape with the locket Horcrux. He dismisses the possibility that Snape's love for Lily Potter might be so strong that Snape would spend much of his adult life working to bring about the defeat of Lily's murderer.
That's a great deal of information to pack into what is, in fact, a relatively short scene in the second novel. It speaks volumes for J.K.'s abilities as a story teller but does it undermine Anonymous' criticism that Voldemort is flat and one-dimensional throughout the books?
I have to admit that I'm not sure it does. I may have to accept that Anonymous is right but credit Rowling with intentionally creating a single-minded, one-dimensionally evil character and leave it at that.
What are your thoughts?
Just yesterday, I was reading the last part of Harry Potter et La Chambre des Secrets (the French translation of Rowling's second novel) and reviewed, once again, our first meeting with Tom Riddle, the Dark Lord's youthful self. What an interesting presentation that was!
Voldemort's shadow hangs over the early novels, even though his appearances in these books are brief. In The Philosopher's Stone, Harry learns of Voldemort at first from Hagrid and it is Hagrid's fearful, halting explanations of who the Dark Lord is and what he had done to Harry's parents that set the tone for Voldemort's influence on the rest of the series of books.
In the movie version of that first novel, Robbie Coltrane does a great job of capturing the fear and paranoia that continues to grip the magical world, even though ten years have passed since Voldemort disappeared. I am particularly fond of the way Coltrane spits out the word "Codswallop" in that scene. He's just so vehement about it: "Some people say he's dead. Codswallop, I say."
We catch our first glimpse of Voldemort at the end of that first book, a shrivelled face that emerges from the back of Quirrell's head in the final battle over the fabled Stone. But it is only when Harry plunges into the diary in The Chamber of Secrets that J.K. begins the wonderful process of serving up, in tantalising pieces, the story of Voldemort's younger years. The scene in the Chamber provides even more of these morsels.
The Tom Riddle of the second novel is a handsome, well-spoken, seemingly quiet young man. We learn he is an orphan, with a Muggle father and a magical mother, that he desperately hopes to escape the orphanage and that he is a remarkably brilliant student. We also learn that he is a Parselmouth and, oh yes, that he is the direct descendant of Salazar Slytherin, one of the four founders of the Hogwarts School.
This all seems very positive, especially if you can see the Slytherin relationship as merely a sign that Riddle is related to magical royalty rather than a sign that he is associated with a Muggle-hating bigot.
But then we meet the memory of Riddle in the Chamber. This Riddle is portrayed as self-centred, vindictive and judgmental. He brags about his ability to charm people in order to get his way. For the first time, we see his willingness to see others as pawns in his game, as tools to be used and cast aside. His ridicule of the 11-year-old Ginny Weasley for the childishness and banality of her diary entries, for her little girl hopes and fears, confirm him as a hateful, spiteful individual and his complete lack of concern or empathy over her impending death is a telling foreshadowing of his future behaviour.
We also get a glimpse of two weaknesses in Riddle that would continue to plague Voldemort in his adult life. The first is his fear of Dumbledore. Already as a 16 year old, Riddle struggles with the power Dumbledore seems to have over him, with his frustration over his inability to charm the brilliant wizard, to blind Dumbledore to his evil intentions. Even as he brags that Dumbledore was chased from Hogwarts by the mere memory of Voldemort, Riddle reveals his own inability to deal with Dumbledore's unique ability to stand up to him.
The second weakness we encounter is Voldemort's underestimation of the power of things that do not interest him or that he does not understand. It never occurred to Riddle that Lily Potter's decision to sacrifice herself out of love for her son would provide Harry with the protection he needed to survive Voldemort's attack. And when Harry points this fact out, Riddle both recognises and dismisses it, seeing it only as evidence that Harry alone could not have withstood him.
When Fawkes, the Phoenix, arrives to help Harry, bringing with him the Sorting Hat, Riddle mocks Harry and Dumbledore relentlessly. A song bird and a moth-eaten hat, he laughs. This is the help the great Dumbledore sends you? Even as a 16-year-old, Riddle understands only certain types of power, only certain kinds of magic. And he pays for it. The hat provides Harry with the Sword of Gryffindor, the weapon he needs to kill the Basilisk. Meanwhile, Fawkes proves invaluable, first blinding the great snake and then saving Harry from the Basilisk's venom with his healing tears.
We can't forget that one of Voldemort's greatest flaws is his inability to recognise power in forms he cannot or refuses to understand. He is all but destroyed by the power of Lily's love and sacrifice for Harry. He underestimates the power of house elves, never considering that an elf like Kreacher could infiltrate the cave and escape with the locket Horcrux. He dismisses the possibility that Snape's love for Lily Potter might be so strong that Snape would spend much of his adult life working to bring about the defeat of Lily's murderer.
That's a great deal of information to pack into what is, in fact, a relatively short scene in the second novel. It speaks volumes for J.K.'s abilities as a story teller but does it undermine Anonymous' criticism that Voldemort is flat and one-dimensional throughout the books?
I have to admit that I'm not sure it does. I may have to accept that Anonymous is right but credit Rowling with intentionally creating a single-minded, one-dimensionally evil character and leave it at that.
What are your thoughts?
Friday, September 23, 2011
On Draco's Redemption and Voldemort's humanity
I received some great comments from "Anonymous" on the issues of Draco's Redemption and the portrayal of Voldemort in the final film. As you might recall from some of my earlier posts on these subjects, I was more mystified than anything about the way Draco behaves in the seventh and eighth films and I was very unhappy with the way Stephen Kloves wrote Voldemort for the final movie, turning him, in my opinion, into a bit of a putz.
I think Anonymous makes a great point when she/he says that Draco's behaviour is actually laudable, that Draco's decision to join his mother and father just before the last battle and to leave Hogwarts while the battle still rages fits well with J.K.'s theme that real courage is shown in standing up against your friends. Draco and his family clearly make a decision that, even if Voldemort wins his fight with Harry, they no longer want any part of the Dark Lord and his monstrous ways.
On the issue of the portrayal of Voldemort in the final film, however, Anonymous and I will have to agree to disagree. Anonymous argues that Voldemort is more real, more human in the eighth film than in the final book and Anonymous likes that. I respect that position but I would argue that Rowling intended to make Voldemort less and less real, less and less human, more and more flat and one-dimensional in the later books precisely because of what he had done to his soul.
By splitting his soul into eight pieces, Voldemort filleted himself and his humanity. By the time only two bits of his soul survived (the one in him and the one in Nagini), Voldemort's humanity is paper thin. He is flat and soulless.
I think the movie version betrays what J.K. was trying to do. In the novel, Harry tells Voldemort that he can repair the damage to his soul by showing sincere regret for his evil deeds. By that time, however, Voldemort no longer has enough soul left even to consider being anyone other than his evil self. There is no regret coming because there is no regret possible for such a decimated person.
You can find Anonymous' very interesting and well-thought-out comments attached to the posts of July 28 (Draco's Redemption: How Can he just walk away?) and and July 20 (The film's Voldemort becomes a sad and silly caricature). I'm interested to read what other people think!
I think Anonymous makes a great point when she/he says that Draco's behaviour is actually laudable, that Draco's decision to join his mother and father just before the last battle and to leave Hogwarts while the battle still rages fits well with J.K.'s theme that real courage is shown in standing up against your friends. Draco and his family clearly make a decision that, even if Voldemort wins his fight with Harry, they no longer want any part of the Dark Lord and his monstrous ways.
On the issue of the portrayal of Voldemort in the final film, however, Anonymous and I will have to agree to disagree. Anonymous argues that Voldemort is more real, more human in the eighth film than in the final book and Anonymous likes that. I respect that position but I would argue that Rowling intended to make Voldemort less and less real, less and less human, more and more flat and one-dimensional in the later books precisely because of what he had done to his soul.
By splitting his soul into eight pieces, Voldemort filleted himself and his humanity. By the time only two bits of his soul survived (the one in him and the one in Nagini), Voldemort's humanity is paper thin. He is flat and soulless.
I think the movie version betrays what J.K. was trying to do. In the novel, Harry tells Voldemort that he can repair the damage to his soul by showing sincere regret for his evil deeds. By that time, however, Voldemort no longer has enough soul left even to consider being anyone other than his evil self. There is no regret coming because there is no regret possible for such a decimated person.
You can find Anonymous' very interesting and well-thought-out comments attached to the posts of July 28 (Draco's Redemption: How Can he just walk away?) and and July 20 (The film's Voldemort becomes a sad and silly caricature). I'm interested to read what other people think!
Sunday, September 18, 2011
All hell breaks loose
"When have any of our plans ever worked? We plan. We get there. All hell breaks loose."
Harry says that to Hermione in The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, just after they've escaped Gringott's with Hufflepuff's Cup. He's told them that Voldemort knows they're hunting Horcruxes and that the final one can be found at Hogwarts.
When Hermione objects to the idea of going immediately to the school, saying they should plan instead, Harry responds, "When have any of our plans ever worked? We plan. We got there. All hell breaks loose."
Harry's right of course but it's an interesting line for the screenwriter, Steven Kloves, to have added to the story (it's not in the novel). Why does he throw this line in, since in some ways it sounds to me like a criticism of Rowling's books?
I doubt he intended to criticise Rowling in any way. I think he puts it in because he needs a quick explanation for why they have to go to Hogwarts immediately, without planning.
In the novel, the explanation is much deeper and more subtle. Voldemort realises they're hunting Horcruxes and decides that he has to visit the site at which he's hidden each of the others to confirm that they are still there.
Harry sees inside his mind as Voldemort thinks of each one and makes the decision to leave the one hidden at Hogwarts until last, feeling that it must be safe there with Snape in charge.
That gives the Hero Trio some time to get to Hogwarts and begin the search, while the Dark Lord is visiting his grandfather's shack and the cave by the sea.
They can't plan because they would be wasting the precious time granted them by Voldemort's search. It's a much more plausible and interesting explanation.
But, of course, the movie Harry is right. No matter how hard they plan, they always seem to survive on their wits alone.
Harry says that to Hermione in The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, just after they've escaped Gringott's with Hufflepuff's Cup. He's told them that Voldemort knows they're hunting Horcruxes and that the final one can be found at Hogwarts.
When Hermione objects to the idea of going immediately to the school, saying they should plan instead, Harry responds, "When have any of our plans ever worked? We plan. We got there. All hell breaks loose."
Harry's right of course but it's an interesting line for the screenwriter, Steven Kloves, to have added to the story (it's not in the novel). Why does he throw this line in, since in some ways it sounds to me like a criticism of Rowling's books?
I doubt he intended to criticise Rowling in any way. I think he puts it in because he needs a quick explanation for why they have to go to Hogwarts immediately, without planning.
In the novel, the explanation is much deeper and more subtle. Voldemort realises they're hunting Horcruxes and decides that he has to visit the site at which he's hidden each of the others to confirm that they are still there.
Harry sees inside his mind as Voldemort thinks of each one and makes the decision to leave the one hidden at Hogwarts until last, feeling that it must be safe there with Snape in charge.
That gives the Hero Trio some time to get to Hogwarts and begin the search, while the Dark Lord is visiting his grandfather's shack and the cave by the sea.
They can't plan because they would be wasting the precious time granted them by Voldemort's search. It's a much more plausible and interesting explanation.
But, of course, the movie Harry is right. No matter how hard they plan, they always seem to survive on their wits alone.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Savouring the end of The Deathly Hallows
Okay, here's where I am. Harry has just reviewed Snape's memories, he's told Neville to kill Nagini if Neville gets the chance and he's walking into the Forbidden Forest to fulfill his destiny and die under the wand of the Dark Lord.
I have forced myself to put the book down and take a break. I've read it probably ten times already and I've listened to the audiobook several times as well. But I want to take a moment to savour...
That's long enough. Back to the exciting conclusion of The Deathly Hallows!
I have forced myself to put the book down and take a break. I've read it probably ten times already and I've listened to the audiobook several times as well. But I want to take a moment to savour...
That's long enough. Back to the exciting conclusion of The Deathly Hallows!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)