Now that I've had some time to let the shock of it all sink in, here are my thoughts. (As someone else has let the proverbial cat out of the bag, I no longer feel too bad about bandying names or thoughts about.)
Still, I guess I'd better say...
SPOILERS AHEAD!
...
...
...
As I hinted in my previous post, I wasn't surprised that Dumbledore had died. I was pretty sure that he was going to die either in book six or in book seven, even before I heard that rumour a couple of months ago. I was, however, very surprised at the way he went. I had wondered whether he had been using Nicolas Flamel's elixir of life, so when the philosopher's stone was destroyed in book one, he was, essentially, signing his own death warrant.
That might, of course, still be the case and is the only way I can think of that would allow Snape to have killed Dumbledore and still be on the side of good. A 'hey, he was going to die anyway, and this keeps me in with the Dark Lord,' kind of thing. I can't see that happening, though. If it does, I won't be very happy because… Well, you'll see.
Snape. Ah, Snape. I'm not sure whether I feel impressed by J K Rowling that she got me to fall into the whole Snape is really a decent guy in search of redemption trap and therefore was shocked by his actions, or whether I feel really, really manipulated. Certainly, I feel… cheated, I guess. Then again, I'm sure I'm supposed to feel cheated, shocked, appalled… Isn't that what Dumbledore would have felt, too? Assuming that Snape really is evil, through and through.
The thing is, despite his nastiness, I actually liked Snape. He had depth. He was interesting. If he really is dark, then he is actually a very two-dimensional character who has been given dimension by the way others have perceived him, and the way the perceptions of the other characters have been filtered through to the reader. As I say, it's either very clever, or very manipulative.
Oh, and I agree. Dumbledore's reason for thinking that Snape had repented was unbelievably flimsy.
In a way, I want Snape to be good, because I care / cared for this character. But in another, if he does turn out to be good after everything in this book, I will feel doubly cheated. One about-face I can take. A second would be too much.
I was very disappointed with the way that the Slytherins were dealt with in this book, too. Are there really no good Slytherins? Snape. Evil. Blaise. As horrible as the rest of Malfoy's cronies. Malfoy… Well, the jury's out on him at the moment, because at least he failed to carry out the last part of his task. All the way through the series, I have thought that there must be decent Slytherins out there somewhere, but maybe I was wrong.
Harry. You know, the older he gets, the less I think I like him. I'm caught up in the stories, yes. And I'll be waiting to see what happens in book seven. But like Wendy, I'm not so excited about it as I have been about the previous ones. There is a darkness in Harry that I don't appreciate; I could just about forgive him for trying Crucio at the end of book five, but… Why doesn't anyone (other than Snape!) ever actually take him to task for this?
In fact, that brings me to another point. The characterisation of Harry here seemed almost… flat. He seemed very accepting of everything that had happened at the end of book five. I'd have liked to see him dealing with his grief. Okay, so I didn't expect an angst fest, but a little more depth would have been good. Same goes for his interaction with Dumbledore. I find it hard to understand Harry's loyalty to him, after everything Harry has found out / been through.
To be honest, rather than a book in its own right, it seemed to be setting things up for book seven, moving the characters into the places that J K R wants / needs them to be.
I agree with Wendy that the idea of Harry not returning to school leaves me cold. He really doesn't know enough to go against Voldemort.
(As an aside, here, I'd like to point out that I think the cleverest of Harry's generation are probably Fred and George Weasley. They may not have many formal qualifications, but look at what they create! Hermione is bright, certainly, but it is book learning. And Harry… Yes, he's brave and noble (when he's not trying to cast the cruciatus curse, that is), but he struggles to learn his spells. Compare that with what we know of Harry's parents, of Sirius, of Snape and Voldemort. They were all pretty creative in their own ways. I really don't get the sense that Harry is up there with them, so how he is going to tackle Voldemort is beyond me, at least at present.)
The relationships. I could have lived without the Harry and Ginny thing. It struck me as completely unnecessary. And contrived.
The best things about the book? Voldemort. Who we never actually saw. At least we've learned a lot more about him. He really is evil! Psychopathic evil, in my opinion. And, yes, there was shock value to Snape.
I remember that I got half way through Order of the Phoenix, thinking, okay, when is the plot going to begin, and then realising that, hey, the tensions with the Ministry of Magic was the plot. In this one, I had the same feeling. There was a lot of reading before anything really began to happen. However, in book five there was a kind of claustrophobic seige thing going on, which added tension for the reader. That was definitely lacking here.
Yes, I'm glad I read it. Yes, I read it compulsively. Yes, I will read book seven; I've invested too much time and emotion to want to duck out now. But, no, this isn't may favourite. Not by a long way.
Chris
P.S. On the Sorcerer's / Philosopher's Stone thing... The first time I read about Nicolas Flamel and his philosopher's stone, it was in an American fanzine, way before I came across Harry Potter. How ironic is that?
