To Re-Read, or Not

Unless you've been on an extended space walk, I imagine you know Friday is opening day for the final installment of the Harry Potter movies. To prepare, the kids and I have been watching the earlier movies. I also thought I might brush up on the books, because when they first came out, I read them so fast (to find out what happened) that now I don't really remember some of the details. For the last book, actually, my memory of the major plot events is pretty sketchy.

I started re-reading the first book in the series, but I haven't made much progress over the first couple of days. It's not because I don't like the book; Sorcerer's Stone is actually a book that gives me a lot of pleasure; I think it is so well-edited and so imaginative. The problem is that I keep having this nagging feeling that I ought to be spending my sparse reading time on something new that I've never read before. There are all kinds of books on the shelves in this house that I've not read yet; shouldn't I reduce that TBR pile instead of going back to the same story I already know?

This is something I nag my daughter about all the time. I can't tell you how many times that child has read Princess Academy by Shannon Hale or the Warriors books by Erin Hunter. I'm glad she has favorite books, but I keep telling her she needs to expand her reading horizons. There are so many classics out there and so many good new books that she will miss out on if she just keeps reading the same thing over and over. I don't seem to be having much success with this campaign, by the way.

Another acquaintance once said she never re-reads a book. She said there are too many books in the world to spend time going back. I agree with her on the point that there are many worthwhile stories I'd like to read, but I also see the appeal of revisiting a book. It's the tension between getting back in touch with good old friends or meeting someone new. Both have value and can add pleasure to our lives.

I guess one thing that is bogging me down this time is the knowledge that Sorcerer's Stone is the first of a lengthy series. If I start on it now, it's likely to take me the rest of the year to finish (given what I have waiting for me this fall when school starts again - ugh). That means no chances to meet interesting new friends - and I had interest in "dates" with several characters. As much as I love Harry Potter, I don't want to miss out on meeting Mr. Darcy for the first time.

My compromise for the time being is to read the last three books in the series. They are the most complicated in the series and the ones I tend to confuse. And maybe I can finish with enough time to get to Mr. Darcy.

What do you think? Do you re-read or stick to books that are new to you?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

(Guest post by my daughter)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a great piece of fiction of a teenage boy. This is the seventh story of seven,and I've read it about three times. This book was written by famed writer J.K. Rowling, who is a great writer. Harry was one year old when some thing terrible happened,and he is now on the hunt to find the horcruxes to sever every strand Voldemort has to the world. Can he keep his two friends close, or will an unexpected fight take the whole mission down? In it is a snitch from the past, a weird symbol, a children's book, and a sword. I think you should read this because it is an inviting book of survival, and life and death.

How Long Until July?

If nothing else, the Harry Potter series has forced on us the virtue of patience.  We would anxiously anticipate the release of a new book, devour the book in a day or less, and then have to wait another year (or more) for the release of the next one.  The same is true of the movies based on the books, although I think the wait between Deathly Hallows parts 1 and 2 is going to be the most agonizing yet.

I've said before that I thought the first movie stuck a little too devotedly to its book, while others (like The Half-Blood Prince) seemed to wander a bit far from the original (not that I'm necessarily opposed to that, unlike my husband and son).  This latest movie stayed fairly close to the material in the book, and in some ways, I think it did an even better job with the storytelling than the book did.  I'm thinking specifically about the chapters in which Harry, Ron, and Hermione were wandering around the countryside trying to figure out how to find horcruxes.  In the book, those chapters (honestly) seemed to drag a little; in the movie, a handful of establishing shots (of some very different and very beautiful landscapes) accomplished what took lots of words in the books.  That allowed for more emphasis to fall on the characters, and I must say I am greatly impressed with the way these young actors brought out emotions.  I had never much liked Ron's character, in either the books or the movies, but Rupert Grint sort of changed my mind about Ron in this movie by giving him some depth I'd never considered.

Of course, I absolutely love Hermione, and this movie made me doubly appreciate just how invaluable she was to Harry during his mission (I want that beaded purse!). Emma Watson plays the character with a combination of a sort of grim understanding of what she's gotten into and a certain vulnerability that really shows what she's giving up to help Harry.  I guess that's what I liked best about this installment of the series. In the other movies, the actors are portraying what's on the page; in this movie, the actors are enriching what's on the page.  My husband has commented a couple of times on how well Jason Isaacs portrays a Lucius Malfoy who is fresh out of Azkaban; Lucius has lost a whole lot of his swagger, and Isaacs actually gives Lucius a slight tremble that really captures the essence of how his world, personal and public, has been turned upside down.  That's not an exception, either; David Yates seems to have pulled good performances out of everyone.

The action sequences were sufficiently thrilling, and the scary scenes were delightfully creepy.  But I think what I enjoyed most (being the English major geek I am) was watching these young characters take on the mantle of adulthood in a situation in which the stakes are impossibly high.  Story arc, you know.

The movie ends in just the right place, too.  When the credits started to roll, I wanted to stand and say, NO!!!! NOT YET!!!!!  July is so far away!

A Good Role Model, in a Way I Didn't Expect

Our family hasn't yet been to see the new Harry Potter movie, believe it or not. We're planning to go tonight, but to settle my curiosity until then, I've been reading a few related articles.

I read one today that was an interview with Emma Watson, the lovely girl who grew up before our eyes as Hermione. The article was talking about how she has continued her education, unlike most of the other young stars of the series. One of the comments on the story pointed out that Miss Watson and Hermione were good role models for girls because they both value education, which the commentor pointed out was a major departure from how most girl main characters are portrayed in children's television (just watch some Disney channel shows if you don't believe it).

I thought that was a good point. But last night as I was watching the Half-Blood Prince on DVD with my daughter (to get ready, you know) I saw another good message Hermione sends - a girl can be friends with a guy without having a romantic thing with him. (I'm talking Harry, not Ron, here.)

One morning not long ago, the DJs on the radio station I listen to on my way to work where trying to decide if men and women can actually be just friends.  It surprised me how many people said no.  I suppose it shouldn't have.  In a lot of books and shows, if there is a man and a woman, they eventually will end up in a romantic relationship.  This is not only true of stories for adult viewers, but also for teens.  One of the shows my kids used to love to watch was Ned's Declassified, about a trio of middle school students, two boys and a girl.  At first Ned and Mose (the girl) were just best friends, but as the kids (and the show) got older, eventually they ended up dating each other.  I could probably think of other examples, but I'm lazy (and it's getting close to time to head to the movie!).

I'll admit I always wanted the same thing to happen with Harry and Hermione.  Alas, JK Rowling had other plans.  And yet, watching the movie last night, I decided it was a good thing for those two characters to not be romantic with each other. They can be close and share their problems and secrets without the baggage that comes with "being in love" with each other. It's nice to see that.  And one of the reviews I saw about the new movie says the friendship between the two characters comes across well.  Even though their relationship is not romantic, they love each other.  Nice. 

Can't wait to see it....

Entry for July 30, 2007 -- Rich on So Many Levels

I've had a few days now to think about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling. The more I think about it, the more there is to think about. For this blog entry, I'm just going to go through some random issues related to the book, not try to give any kind of coherent "review."

Where to start????

First of all, it was a great adventure story. There were several times when I found myself so tense as I was reading about the situations the "trio" got themselves into, I had to laugh at myself. My arms would actually be weak after I put the book down, ha ha! At various times during this whole series I've found the "old fogey" in me scolding Harry for getting into situations that put him in so much danger -- in this book, though, the danger and the situations are a natural culmination of the earlier action -- this book is about a war. It's thrilling and fun to read.

I guess now I'll talk about what I see as the overall message of the book, although as I try to come up with that message I think the book is sort of like the Mirror of Erised -- a person sees what he/she desires to see -- or is predisposed to see. To me, this book is about faith. SPOILER ALERT!! This theme struck me most clearly when I was reading Harry's thoughts as he is trying to decide whether to follow the task Dumbledore set out for him or to pursue the new angle he's sure Voldemort is up to. "He felt that he was still groping in the dark; he had chosen his path but kept looking back, wondering whether he had misread the signs, whether he should not have taken the other way. " He's angry and disappointed that Dumbledore didn't spell it out for him so that he knew what he should do. In the end, he must trust that Dumbledore has told him enough, and he has to act on that faith. Isn't that an appropriate allegory for the Christian life? How many times in my own life have I wondered if I'm doing the right thing, wishing God would put an unambiguous message in neon letters in the sky so I could know? But if we know, it's not faith, is it? The power of faith is acting on the basis of trust -- to give up our own need to know and see how everything fits together, and to follow the path the Master has set our feet on. We have to trust that the Master has given us enough of whatever it is we need to do what He asks of us.

I have loved the character of Harry since the first book. Over the series, it's been fun to watch his growth both as a "normal human being" and as "the Chosen One." In the climatic chapter of Deathly Hallows, it is touching to see how he deals with being both of those when the roles are mutually exclusive. I've seen articles since the book came out that compare Harry to Christ, and I don't know about that -- I'm not really comfortable with that comparison. But that chapter did relate to something I've thought about lately, and that is, what was Jesus thinking about as He went to the cross and while He was on the cross? Maybe there were some parallels to Harry's thinking as he walked into the forest to meet Voldemort. I have wondered lately if the cry "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" was not so much a cry of despair as it was the beginning of a recitation of Psalm 22 (which begins with those very words), a clinging to something that gave strength and comfort, just as Harry's --- well, don't want to give away TOO much!!

(If you're wondering why I said that about Psalm 22, it's because the last section of the psalm describes the Lord's -- and thus the Lamb's -- victory. I believe Jesus would have been well-versed in the scriptures, to the point of having much of it committed to memory. He would know the psalm that began with despair ends in triumph. But I digress too far!)

There's also a really interesting discussion-starter for students of ethics. Was Dumbledore right or wrong to treat Harry the way he did? His behavior is a good example of utilitarian ethics, and generally, I think, we would argue he's right. But seeing it from the viewpoint of the one chosen to suffer for the many is interesting.

The only thing I was disappointed in about the book was that Rowling didn't bring the four houses together in the end in a rejection of evil. The Slytherins still didn't join in. I read one posting on HPfGU (Harry Potter for Grownups) that explicated the book as confirming the power of labels and of underscoring the notion that some people are just "good," while others are just "bad," and that can't be changed. Yeah, I kind of wish there had been some change of heart for at least some of the Slytherins.

I also did not care for the epilogue, but that's because the wrong people ended up together -- in my opinion, anyway! And I despise Mrs. Weasley!! I can't really understand why -- I try to intellectualize it, but I can't seem to do that. I just have a gut reaction of truly disliking that character. I hope it's not as people say -- the things we despise most in others are the faults in ourselves, ha ha.

Oh, there's much, much more to think about and talk about. But I think I'll let this post go at this point. I'm sure there's a limit to people's tolerance!!!But I'm left with one burning question: Was Dolores Umbridge an agent of Voldemort, or was she just a bully?