this vacation is much more necessary than i thought it would be - and that's saying something, as california! has been our rallying cry for the past three months whenever new york indignities got us down. i'm sitting on my dad's patio, waiting for the sun to warm up the pool and watching yachts scuttle up and down the coast (who are these people? eight in the morning on a weekday?), and i can't stop thinking about work. i made the mistake of figuring out how to check ye olde corporate e-mail before i left on friday, so i now know that i've got an interview when i get back on monday and, if i'm lucky, a huge interview sometime next week. my junior editor is more than capable of handling everything else that crops up between now and then, but those two assignments (especially the iffy one, which would yield the niftiest clip i've ever had the chance to write) will jangle my nerves until i dull them with leisure. guacamole and sunscreen, you're up.
harry potter, incidentally, was quite satisfying (though my pilgrimage to the grand hallows ball at columbus circle on friday was, as george and joe predicted, serious overkill) - if you've finished, meet me in the [spoilertastic] comment box.
4 comments:
okay, then.
hedwig's death? totally unnecessary. one could argue that getting rid of her made the whole sam-and-frodo-in-mordor-esque sequence with the magical tent more doable (it's a lot harder to hide under an invisible cloak with a starving owl, i'd imagine), but one would be silly.
harry's death/notdeath: i was kind of hoping jk rowling would go for the gusto and actually kill harry for good in this sequence, but that would kind of spoil the potter legacy. how could kids continue to be obsessed with him if they knew he died at the end of the last book? harry's march to meet voldemort was (of course christ-tastic but more to the point) super-reminiscent of aslan's sacrifice in the lion, the witch and the wardrobe; the latter really destroyed me when i was little (even though i hate c.s. lewis), so the former was extra-traumatic. also: what the hell was that whimpering thing in king's cross station? what was the point there?
snape loved lily potter: the whole pensieve sequence with snape's flashbacks was, i thought, very well done (though i wonder how that will play in the deathly hallows movie - it and many of the dumbledore backstories are going to be really tough to direct). he now rivals sirius black in my affections.
dobby's demise: dobby was the jar jar binks of the movies, but damn it, this killed me. $20 says j.k. rowling's read laura gilpin's 'the two-headed calf.'
griphook and the gryffindor sword: i've always liked how rowling addressed racism via hermione's soft spot for the house elves. with the goblins, though, she kinda condones it; i thought bill's speech (and the way griphook was described) was deeply, deeply sketchy.
god, where were you when the "portland fans of harry potter" meetup group met yesterday to discuss, debate, and postulate over ms. rowling's choices in her seventh and final installment over stumptown coffee & crepes. you would have been a welcome addition to the table.
"also: what the hell was that whimpering thing in king's cross station? what was the point there?" i asked the same thing. according to the others at the table, that was the piece of voldemort's soul [OT- does it make me a death eater that i prefer to call him "the dark lord?"] that he had unknowingly transferred to harry 18 years ago, making him the eighth horcrux.
smooches.
i finished off the book today, so i'm happy to join in the fray here. i was a little disappointed at the beginnings of the book. there seemed to be some tedious details, and the way j.k. told us about potter's burning scar was starved for variety. i realize the importance of it but MAN! on with it already.
i think the sequence of tent-hopping with ron & hermoine & harry could've benefited from a little more condensing as it seemed particularly extensive. montage, anyone?
i heart dobby. that crushed me.
the post-logue? 19 years later? was that really necessary? (does anyone smell a spinoff? i have my suspicions...)
the portland kids were right, sharon, according to a web chat with j.k. rowling over at bloomsbury.com (their link is busted, so mine is to a reprint @ the leaky cauldron). it's a pretty solid source for post-series questions.
i do think this was The End, though i agree, sara, that the conclusion was suspicious; i don't think j.k. would risk a disaster of godfather: part III proportions by going back to the material. she certainly doesn't need the money. i don't know if the epilogue was necessary, but i did expect it.
Post a Comment