One of my (few) stated goals for Benzene 4 is for it to be a diary in which I record every book I read. Heh. I've done a lousy job of that. I've still got one book from 2006 waiting on the shelf (literally). Will I get to it before the end of the year? Maybe. We'll see. But not today.

For 2007 I'm less behind than you might imagine. Although there are numerous books I've read parts of (including a few I've read well over 75%), assuming my notes are complete, there are only seven I've read from start to finish, and of those seven, only two are books I'd never read before.

The two are the last two books in the Harry Potter series. One of the others is the fifth in the series, which I reread to refresh my memory for number six. (Yes, that's right. In this entire year, the only new books I've in their entirety are Harry Potter books. How sad is that?)

[January?]
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, J.K. Rowling (2003)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, J.K. Rowling (2005)
[September?]
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling (2007)

When I reviewed book five the first time, I complained that it was way too long and sprawly and would have benefitted from aggressive editing. I still think it could use a good trim, but on second reading it didn't seem nearly as bloated as it did the first time.

Book six is also long, but unlike book five, it's terrific. Noticing the downward trend of quality from three to four to five, I was worried that the story had peaked early and it'd be all downhill from there. For anyone who felt similarly, I highly recommend book six. It's definitely on a par with two and three. I think I might even rate it best of the series, though I'd want to read it again to be sure.

Beyond that, I have nothing to say about book six, largely because it just isn't fresh in my memory any more.

I wish I had reread book six in preparation for book seven. I think I might have enjoyed the latter more if I had remembered what was going on. Book seven draws heavily on the storylines launched in the previous book, much more so than in previous consecutive pairs. It also has allusions to all of the previous books. (Maybe I should have reread the entire series in preparation.)

As often happens with final episodes, there is a certain sense of bland busy-work as every loose end is dutifully tied up. (I've especially noticed this in two-part episodes of Star Trek, going back all the way to "The Menagerie" in the original series.) I wouldn't say the resolution was unsatisfying, but I wouldn't say it was terribly interesting to me either. It just sort of left me with a feeling of, "OK, well, that's all how it all works out then." But it's still a good read. On the whole, I think I'd rank book seven in the middle, ahead of one, four and five, but not as good as two, three, or six.

This is where I would put my reassurance that even though I'm going to discuss the books I won't give away any secrets, so it's OK for you to read on even if you haven't read the book yet. But on reflection, I don't think I meet that standard this time. If you're serious about not wanting to have the books spoiled for you, and yet somehow you still haven't gotten around to reading them, then you probably shouldn't have read even this far, and you should certainly stop now. For those of you who aren't so concerned, but might still read them some day, I will continue to dance around the topics, but I can't really promise I won't give anything away.

As I dance, so that I'm not being entirely cryptic, I'll add a special line telling you what the heck I'm talking about, printed in special magic invisible type. If the magic works, this should appear on your screen as blank space, but if you use the cursor to select it, the words will magically appear. But I don't promise it will work on every browser. Here's a sample for you to try:

This is special magic invisible type. If you can see this without selecting it, the magic does not work on your browser.

If you ever intend to read the Harry Potter books, and you haven't already had them spoiled for you elsewhere, don't reveal the invisible type. The power of the magic words is great. For the uninitiated, it will destroy the mystery.

One thing I found particularly interesting in book seven -- not necessarily good or bad, just interesting -- is the way in which two rather significant clues from previous books were abandoned.

I suppose this becomes necessary in any mystery type story. If every clue turns out to be significant, it would be too easy to figure out. You have to have a few false leads to keep it interesting. All the more so in a series that has been scrutinized as carefully as the Harry Potter books. The way some people have studied the first six books, if every clue had to play out, we'd already know the answers before the last book were even written. I would think that an author would resist having herself painted into a corner like that, so if it means abandoning clues that she deliberately set up, so be it.

One of these clues has been chasing us around since the very first book ... ie, that the Voldemort prophecy might also apply to Neville Longbottom rather than Harry ... It was not subtle at all, and I for one kept waiting for it to come up. But it doesn't. It's just abandoned as an irrelevant side note. If it's ever mentioned again at all, I missed it.

Another is a plot line that was introduced in book six, one which I found pretty interesting ... ie, that Dumbledore deliberately had Snape kill him so that Snape would inherit the Elder Wand ... was treated rather amusingly. In a retrospective scene, the character in question says, essentially, "Yeah, that's exactly what I was hoping when we did that, but in the end it didn't turn out that way after all." I'm inclined to read that as proxy for the same confession from Rowling herself. And I have to say, I'm disappointed, because I really liked that plot theme. Oh well.

As long as I'm speaking cryptically, I suppose I could address that revelation that was so controversial this summer ... ie, that Dumbledore is homosexual ... In case you missed it, this bit of background story is never mentioned explicitly in the book, but in an interview Rowling acknowledged that yes, indeed, it's what she had in mind while writing. This ignited a firestorm of controversy as opinion-mongers -- including many from outside the world of Harry Potter fans -- bickered about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of such an idea.

For what it's worth, when I was reading the book, I didn't pick up even the least sense of this back story. I didn't sense its opposite either. Indeed, I didn't think about it at all. Now that I've heard about it, retrospectively I can see how it would make sense, and I suppose that if I were to reread the book (which I assume I'll do eventually) I might notice more of it.

In the same interview Rowling revealed several other bits of back story, listed here. Many of them are surprisingly bland. For instance, Cho Chang went on to marry a muggle. Um, OK. It's just the one bit that got everyone all excited.

I happen to like Rowling's approach to the whole matter. Its good to have back story, and it's good for back story to remain in the back. It reminds me of what we do in theater (opera, in my case). You should always have a much deeper sense of your character than the script allows for; that's what helps you create an interesting character. But you don't stink up the direction in order to push your back story to the front because it's not what the work is really about.

If people didn't want to hear Rowling's back story, they shouldn't have asked. This also raises the interesting question -- which wouldn't even be a question if some people weren't such freaks about Harry Potter -- of whether Rowling's say-so makes this bit of information a "fact" in the Harry Potter universe? I mean, it's nowhere in the canonical text, so is it any more real than someone else's interpretation?

But that's another question, which I don't want to delve into tonight. (Or ever. All that literary constructionist stuff bores me.)

Bonus Trivia: J.K. Rowling does not have a middle name. Prior to the first book's release, her publishers requested a gender neutral name, after the marketing department worried that a book with such an obviously female author as "Joanne Rowling" might not appeal to boys. Not having a middle name, she adopted one in her grandmother's name of Kathleen.

6:39:28 PM  [permalink]  comment []