communication breakdown

Book Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007)

[ 8 / 10 ]

Disclaimer: I will keep my review spoiler-free; however, this does not mean that it is detail-free. I can't tell you anything useful if I don't elaborate somewhat on the storyline. So my promise is to give enough details to be mildly informative, while strictly avoiding the revealing of anything critical. But if you're the kind of person (like myself) who prefers to go into a book completely blind, such that every word is a complete surprise, read no further...

So, how do you bring a complex storyline to a proper conclusion, while fulfilling the hopes, dreams and expectations of millions of rabid fans? This was the modest task laid before J.K. Rowling for the final book in the Harry Potter series. Considering the enormity of the task, I would say that all-in-all she did a bang-up job. Somehow she finds a way to pack in several thrilling battle scenes, a lengthy sojourn for a group of exiles, and tons of critical backstory on several important characters - all while bringing everyone's storyline to a close. To even complete such a task is impressive; to do it well is remarkable. It might have its flaws, but I suspect all fans of the Boy Who Lived will find Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to be a fitting conclusion; maybe not perfect, but certainly worthwhile and fulfilling.

For the most part, the book feels like one big long good-bye: while we see most of the traditional haunts - Privet Drive, Grimmauld Place, Hogwarts, and so on - there is an implicit understanding that we will be seeing all of these for the last time. It feels as though each setpiece has its own farewell: the Dursleys saying goodbye to Harry (albeit smugly); the Weasleys and friends gathering together at the Burrow for the wedding; the whole wizarding world meeting at Hogwarts to choose sides before the epic finale. As if the book was not somber enough, this constant reminder that things are coming to a close only serves to sadden the mood.

At a high level, the story revolves around the trio and their pursuit of the Horcruxes, which is no surprise since Book 6 set up this storyline. But the introduction of the Deathly Hallows was a new angle to the story, the nature of which was a subject of much debate. Without revealing the true identity of the Hallows, I will simply say that they were a welcome addition to the story, and although not introduced until the seventh book, they were written in so well that they didn't seem like a late addition to the canon. The relationship between the Hallows and Horcruxes is a fascinating one, and this is the very impetus that brings forth the true leader in Harry.

A prime focus of this story is this pursuit of leadership, which is only natural, since it has always seemed a bit strange that the whole wizarding world should look to an immature teenager who lacks confidence and direction. Throughout a good portion of the novel Harry struggles with doubts, questions himself and his mentors, and really undergoes a hero's quest to find his true calling. He comes out on the other side prepared to do battle, as we have known for the last 10 years that he must. It is this final step in his development that, up to this point, has been sorely lacking and thankfully finally comes to fruition.

As I alluded to earlier, yet another focus is character development for two major characters: Snape and Dumbledore. In Dumbledore's case, I question the true relevance and necessity of the information that was revealed. It felt a bit out of place, especially so late in the game. Contrast this with the backstory on Snape, a character who has been shrouded in mystery for so long; his story is presented so powerfully, and timed so beautifully within the context of the novel, that it is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the book.

As you might expect, this novel is steeped in death; anything else would have been a disservice to the integrity of the story. People will die; forces of both good and evil, children, creatures, and so on. Major characters are not spared simply on the pretense of being important. The fallout is severe, and magnifies the reality of what is at stake. Half of the fun is finding out who lives and dies, but for each feeling of elation that accompanies seeing someone survive, there is the sadness of watching a close friend pass on. Somehow it's tougher to say goodbye in death than it is to reach the end of the book and know that there are no more pages for the stories of the living.

A thought that came to mind at several points while reading this novel was that it borrowed heavily from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. I felt this was noteworthy because, throughout the first 6 books I never had that feeling, because Rowling has done such a marvelous job of carving out her own fascinatingly creative universe. At first I held this against the book, but the more I thought of it, I realized the sheer inevitability of it. What makes Tolkien's work so unbelievable is its effect on everything after it; there has hardly been a fantasy story written in the last 50 years that hasn't borrowed heavily from it. Given the nature of Rowling's story - an epic battle between good and evil with an unlikely hero - to expect no parallels to Rings would be foolhardy. If anything, her conclusion is a testament and a tribute to the great work that Tolkien started and Rowling has continued, to the delight of countless fans.

Judged on its merits as a concluding piece, Hallows fits the bill. All of the major questions will be answered. Is Snape good or bad? Is Dumbledore really dead? Will Harry & Co. survive? All of these and more are addressed. That being said though, I cannot say it is my favorite book. It has significant weaknesses, including the lengthy focus on Dumbledore's past, and a seemingly interminable portion of the story in which the trio sit around aimlessly and listlessly, doing little but argue and sulk. While such plotlines would have fit well earlier in the story, both felt sorely out of place given the feeling of intense apprehension that was building throughout the book. In my opinion, it is probably the 3rd or 4th best offering - definitely behind Books 4 and 6, and around the same level as Book 3.

This is not said to diminish Rowling's work in any way; on the contrary, the Harry Potter series stands on its own as one of the finest literary series to come along in a great long while, and probably the best in its genre since Rings. There is no weak link, which is probably due to the fact that it is clear now that she knew what she wanted to accomplish from the very first book. The characters are well-developed and utterly real (sometimes painfully so). The surroundings are lush and fascinating, and for every tidbit that delights the imagination, there is an ever-present sense of fear and evil to contrast it. Her universe is truly a magical place.

With any good series, you hate to say goodbye; not just to the characters, but to the world itself. When you finish Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it's like closing the door on a little portion of yourself - you're not going to want to put it down.

Harry Potter and the Greener Pastures

Here's a play-by-play of my excursion to pick up Harry Potter Book 7 at midnight tonight:

11:50: Leave house. Destination: Wal-Mart.
11:54: Arrive at Wal-Mart.
11:55: Enter store and approach front of line. Begin walking to the back of the line...
11:56: ... still walking ...
11:57: ... still walking ...
11:58: Disgusted, I leave Wal-Mart. Destination: Kroger (across the street).
11:59: Arrive at Kroger.
12:00: They put a book in my hand as soon as I walk in the door.
12:01: While waiting in line to pay, I do everything I can to completely ignore the family in front of me who literally grabbed the book, flipped to the last page, read it, and begin commenting on what they find there. Not making this up.

12:04: Emerge from Kroger mostly unscathed and very happy I didn't wait at Wal-Mart.

I'm not even kidding, the line at Wal-Mart spanned the entire length of the store. For that matter, it might have wrapped around on itself. I have no idea because I never even saw the end - after walking past at least 100-200 people I bolted.

Book review forthcoming...

Bad Boys

If you haven't seen The Wire, and you love quality television, you need to find out what you've been missing now. For years now I've been hearing from various sources that this show is the best on television, but I had a hard time believing it, mainly because I had no concept of what it was about, and figured that it would win more awards than it does if it were truly that great.

Well, I'm here to report that the rumors are true; this show is as good as advertised. Despite my love for 24 and Lost, I must admit that The Wire is probably the finest TV drama I've ever seen. That's not to say it's for everyone; on the contrary, it's probably only suited for a small segment of the TV-watching population. It has a huge assortment of characters (over 50 at last count), an extremely thorough and slowly-developing storyline, and lots of different side plots. Add to this a focus on the drug trade, and a heaping ton of harsh and profane slang and you have a show that is a daunting (and likely insurmountable) task for the casual viewer.

So what's so good about it? Well, the acting is out of this world. The story is utterly realistic and very rich with detail. The characters are a portrait of reality; there is no obvious "good" and "bad", just "human" (very much like The Shield). But most of all, the writing will knock you over. With honest brutality the show examines the Balitmore drug trade and all the scenarios surrounding it, including the relationships between dealers and cops, politicians and their unwillingness to help out the defenseless, drug suppliers, the school system, and the street environment which funnels children into drugs. It is so frank and heartbreaking that it will open your eyes to a whole new universe.

If you're not scared off yet, I urge you to check it out. Buy the DVDs or rent them from Netflix/Blockbuster. Order HBO if you have to. In fact, I'll probably do this when Season 5 (the final one) airs, because I know I'm not going to want to wait to see how this one ends. You think The Sopranos is good? I'm telling you, it can't hold a candle to The Wire. It's not even a fair fight...

Oscar Turns One (And Turns Bad)

So Oscar turned a year old on Father's Day, and I figured a fitting present (considering his consistently good behavior) would be to stop crating him during the day while I'm at work. Unfortunately, that decision has been met with mixed results. Most of the days he has been fine, but I've returned home to find a couple of bad surprises. The first one I noticed was his tendency to chew on some of the wooden blinds in the dining room. Then he decided to eat (and later regurgitate) a brush that my roommate left on his floor.

Needless to say I was surprised to see this bad behavior, especially since I've left him home for many hours at a time on numerous previous occasions, and never once did we have an issue. However, I have a feeling that his acting up has less to do with being left out of the crate, and more to do with his age. I have heard that usually dogs between 1-2 years of age often test their boundaries and are much more troublesome than at any other point in their lives. What makes me think this is that he has done some other bad stuff lately, not during work hours. Last Sunday as I left for church I left him out for an hour or so, and came home to find an old couch pillow torn open. And just last night, after I fell asleep on the couch, I woke up to find he had chewed on the dining room wall.

I disciplined him pretty significantly for all of these incidents, which I hate doing because now whenever I return home from work he acts scared regardless if he's been good or bad. But I'm sure this will disappear over time, as he outgrows this bad behavior. I just hope it isn't an ongoing trend for the next year.

Book Review: Lolita (1954)

[ 8 / 10 ]

Lolita is a troubling and disturbing book on many levels, beyond the obvious reason of the subject matter. Nobody would expect a story about a pedophile to be a cheery and pleasant read. But the real trouble here is that the book is lyrical, beautiful, sincere, and utterly convincing. Vladimir Nabokov, a master of prose, does the seemingly impossible by writing a love story between man and girl that walks a fine line between condemnation and approval. He forces the reader to postpone the natural tendency to be revolted and instead seriously consider the characters' situation. To pair some of the most beautiful writing of our time with such a deep-seated taboo subject, and have the result be universally acclaimed, is surely one of the most impressive literary feats in recent memory.

The first order of business is to dispel a common myth: this is not a lewd and racy novel. I felt kinda strange reading this book immediately after finishing Portnoy's Complaint, given that both are well-known for their focus on various forms of sexual deviancy. But whereas the former was graphic and explicit, Lolita is utterly different - focusing almost entirely on emotional intimacy rather than physical lust. Sure, the primary focus of the novel are the efforts of a man to consummate a relationship with a pre-teen, but both the author (and by extension, his main character) are clear on the fact that the actual act of sex is secondary to the fulfillment of love. Sex is rarely discussed in the novel, and when addressed, it is in vague terms, which is at least partially due to the innocent age in which it was written.

Lolita is a strongly psychological work, focusing primarily on its main character, Humbert Humbert - a distinguished, well-spoken, strikingly handsome, and fundamentally deranged man. It is obvious from the beginning that he is writing the novel from prison, and he presents the story as his life's work, showing considerable pride and absolutely no remorse for his actions. Like any good psychological study, he begins by retelling critical events of his childhood, including a fateful relationship which framed the way he would see women forever. He then gives us the first glimpse of his warped mind, discussing at length the characteristics of what he refers to as a "nymphet". According to Humbert, certain girls in their preteen years assume an innocently seductive persona which he finds to be utterly irresistible. It is on this premise that he begins the tale of how he met and pursued his Lolita.

So what makes this story more than the reprehensible memoirs of a pedophile? Well, I wouldn't even be writing this if there weren't several such reasons. The first is that Humbert does not fit the stereotype associated with pedophilia. In fact, he is the exact opposite of the introverted reprobate that usually comes to mind. This is the easiest difference to swallow; after that, the reasons get much more complicated and disturbing. For example, there is the depth of feeling and sincerity in Humbert's emotions. Despite his inappropriate affection, there can be no doubt that he loves Lolita with unbelievable passion. It has been said that Lolita is "the only convincing love story of our century", and if you were to ignore the circumstances regarding the relationship and focus purely on the words and thoughts of Humbert, you will be tempted to agree.

Even more troublesome is the possibility that it is Lolita that seduces Humbert, and not vice versa. Nabokov never suggests this as an excuse for his narrator's behavior, but nonetheless it deviates from the traditional "man seduces unknowing child" undercurrent that usually runs through these kinds of stories. Lolita is not your typical pre-teenager; while she does exhibit a healthy amount of capriciousness and immaturity, she clearly has some sort of innate sexual awareness. For all of Humbert's composure and deviousness, he is constantly manipulated and confounded by a twelve-year-old girl who is obviously aware of what she's doing. There's a reason that this story introduced the term "lolita" into the English lexicon; she is such a distinctive and controversial character, the type of which had never been considered or acknowledged to possibly exist in the real world before Nabokov's novel.

All of this amounts to a perplexing and thought-provoking story. Lolita is a beautiful read; masterfully written with flowing language and a good dose of humor, too. Humbert is a likable and almost-sympathetic narrator. And it is a tragic love story, careening towards a terrible ending from the very outset. These things are the hallmarks of great and classic literature. But the addition of the adult-child dynamic has produced wild results, from outrage to acclaim. It is stories like this that are so important because they stand out as original, inspired works that challenge the reader. I guarantee you that, at some point while reading this novel, you will forget that Humbert is an older man and Lolita is a child. Then it will come flooding back to you in a wave of shame, afraid to admit to anyone that for even a moment the love story seemed legitimate. This is Nabokov's great accomplishment.