The end of the year list mania continues as Newsweek magazine has selected "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" as their Best Book of 2007. In an article titled "Wizards, Warmongers and the West Coast," the magazine lists their 15 best books, with the final installment of the Harry Potter series at the number one spot. They write:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. J. K. Rowling.
You could call it the most satisfying ending to a guessing game since the casting of Scarlett O'Hara. The seventh and final installment of the Potter series went in no radical directions [spoiler omitted here], but Rowling made it look effortless when she niftily tied off one plot line after another. The kids who grew up on these novels--and therefore can't help but take them somewhat for granted--have no idea how lucky they are.
Also, earlier Time magazine posted 50 top ten year end lists, and ranked "Deathly Hallows" at number eight on their list of "Best Fiction Books" of the year. The magazine states of the novel by J.K. Rowling:
There's no point in trying to finesse the importance of Harry Potter. In seven books Rowling proved that books can still be a true global mass medium, and that significant chunks of the known world can still embrace a single story. Deathly Hallows finds Rowling is in fine form, pulling all the stops she'd been saving up. She gives us wartime gloom, the crackling three-sided chemistry of Harry and Ron and Hermione, and an epic, cataclysmic finale, among many other minor treats. This isn't the most elegant of the Potter volumes, but it feels like an ending, the final iteration of Rowling's abiding thematic concern: the overwhelming importance of continuing to love in the face of death.
While I would agree with NotTheHBP and others (impact definitely matters), I find it really strange that there still seem to be people who think the Harry Potter series are weak, with respect to their literary value. This is absolute nonsense. The language of Rowling is not only well chosen, precise, and beautiful; she is obviously familiar with narrative theory, literary history, mythology, character formation, and certainly knows how to develop a plot.
The ending of DH is an anti-climax only for those who really saw Voldemort as the superior wizard – in short, for those who failed to understand the moral message of the book. Voldemort was never more than Tom Riddle (and, in death, small and brittle again – just read her carefully chosen phrases!!!!). To quote Harry: “There are no more Horcruxes”.
Besides, why do some people keep reassuring themselves (and us), that they were reading HP despite its popularity? Is this, in any way, relevant? Don’t want to be a killjoy, folks, but WE ARE popular culture! Either you like a book/film/record/painting, or you don’t. It’s as easy as that. If you’re permanently trying to avoid those cultural products that other people like as well, you’ll end up being dominated by mainstream much more than you’d ever have expected.
I suppose “Book of the Year” wouldn’t be too far off the mark, from a publishing standpoint, but best book of the year - whatever their criteria - misses the target by a mile. In no sense was HP7 a literary masterpiece. Whether JKR “niftily” or “contrivedly” tied off “one plot line after another” I guess lies in the eye of the beholder. Of course, this assumes one is willing to overlook the many dropped plot lines—SPEW anyone? And after spending an entire book (HBP) setting up the horcrux plotline, she just shoves it aside in DH for a Deathly Hallows plotline that ends up on a fast train to nowhere. If JKR had simply focused on the horcrux plotline she started in book six, DH would have been tigher, more focused and better paced.
And yes, Mary Ann, the book WAS an “ethics letdown”—from Harry’s use of Unforgivable Curses to euthanasia to institutionalized bigotry and racism (house elves remain slaves, goblins remain second-class citizens, Slytherin remains the house of bigots and racial purists), every “anti” JKR claimed the story was supposed to be about remained unchallenged and unchanged (with our intrepid hero apparently assimilating nicely into his role as slave master at the end).
Best publishing phenom of the year—without a doubt. Best literary work of the year? Probably not in the top 50.
plus there’s a possiblty JK could earn another big honor as right now she leads the online voting for time’s person of the year
Posted by coby preimeberger on December 18, 2007, 05:43 AM
report to moderator
@ NCJE Culver
While S.P.E.W wasn’t taken up again (wonder why, when the wizarding world had been transformed into a dictatorship) the issue of house elves’ enslavement and the second-class status of e.g. Goblins were discussed repeatedly. Kreacher’s pathetic dependence on kindness and respect, Dobby’s sacrifice, the discussions with Griphook – all of these topics are there, but aren’t solved at the end of the book. But why should they? Has anyone in our real world found an answer to the fact why people who grew up in totalitarian states often do not want to exchange them for a democracy? Have you ever wondered why there aren’t uprisings in North Korea every day? Because it’s not as easy as that. Not everybody appreciates the chance to lead a totally independent, free-self-determined life. The house elves are, as Dumbledore stated, what wizards made of them. The fact that, eventually, Ron (as somebody who had always embodied the established habits and beliefs of the magical realm) begins to understand why Hermione cares about their status so much, is a strong indication that elf rights will become an issue in the wizarding world. Just read properly.
The Deathly Hallows establish the Horcurx idea, but on a higher, more metaphysical level. They take up the concept of immortality, and tempt Harry to pursue power. Remember after Dobby’s funeral? Harry wonders whom to interview first. He decides to talk to Griphook, because he felt that destroying the Horcruxes (= defeating Voldemort) is more important than achieving power for himself (= getting the elder wand). This is essential, because it’s this basic difference which ultimately distinguishes Harry from Voldemort.
Rowling has only demonstrated in literature what it means to grow up. Life is becoming more complex, we can’t solve each and every issue until the end of the chapter, or the end of the book. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. But we still have to try.
“He decides to talk to Griphook, because he felt that destroying the Horcruxes (= defeating Voldemort) is more important than achieving power for himself (= getting the elder wand). This is essential, because it’s this basic difference which ultimately distinguishes Harry from Voldemort.”
aaron…i don’t think that harry potter 7 was disappointing…and they weren’t hiding they were looking for the horcruxes…