I am warning those who have not finished the series . . . and there must be still a few of them by now. . . that there are spoilers ahead. I have just finished the last book . . . having spent an enjoyable evening with it thanks to Sam’s Club and an indulgent wife.
I am done with Harry Potter and enjoying the literary aftertaste the way one enjoys a fine meal almost as much after it is done as when it is being consumed . . . though it is a bit sad that the series is finished.
And it is really finished . . .
Will one be able to re-read the books with pleasure?
I think the answer is only a tentative “yes.” If one knows the “puzzles” and “the secrets” of the book, it will not take away the charm of the characters or the fun of a good Quidditch match, but the first read will always be the best.
The strength of these books is in the plot and the second read, when everything is known, will be satisfying for finding all the clues to what happens . . . but I am hard pressed to know if I will want to re-read them a third or fourth time.
A really great book is as good on the fourth read . . . and some children’s books (Little White Horse) are better.
I deeply enjoyed the last book and thought the ending satisfying. For those who found them quite Christian, they will find much in this last book to give strength to their idea. Whether intentionally or not the Christian heritage of Britain (and there was never a book more British) is obvious in the mythology . . . which is otherwise simply a confused hash of “cool magical stuff.” Think like a British Christian “redeeming” culture for Christ in a late twentieth century context (and these are twentieth century books) and it all makes sense.
Secularists who find the Christian images obscure missed a good bit of reading in school.
Perversely this book has been discussed so much that the ending was simpler (no harm in that) than many of the clever schemes I have seen discussed on line!
Some immediate comments on the series while I am still most roused by the conclusion. (We liked the books enough to order four copies . . . as each family member completed their own set who had read them to date.) These are very good books!
The conclusion displayed many of the strengths and weaknesses of the series.
The weaknesses are obvious: an inability to write about beauty as well as the rest of her prose demanded, a tendency to fall into “contemporary” jargon that will seem very dated with time, and editing that can only be described as scandalous in a book with this much potential. Did Rowling have no Inklings to tell her when to cut?
Rowling writes well . . . she plots fabulously . . . she creates lovable characters . . . but her prose fails her when she gets to scenes of great beauty or pathos. Her battles, to cite just one example, end up reading like her Quidditch matches.
The less said about how dated parts of these books will be in fifty years the better. I shall not live to see it in any case . . . a new generation of parents will make sure their children read these books they loved so much in the early twenty-first century so they will last my time.
Some dated references occur in all fiction, but the World War II backdrop to Narnia at least is educational and a more enjoyable tale than having to explain more trivial pop-culture type references.
(”Posters on walls of rock stars? What’s a poster? Why would someone hang an advert in his room?” my grandchild said looking at me with a puzzled expression. “You see, young Lewis,” I said, “groups were marketed way back then to mass number of teens by giant companies run by people who did not make music but sold it, which exploited . . .”)
I am already getting ready to explain to my grandchildren references to semi-profanity twenty years or so from now. (”Dad, what is up with the letter “f”? Was there something wrong with it?”).
The more famous Rowling got the less she seems to have listened to the editor. Some of the middle books are bloated and this one is as well . . . in one way a fan (and I am one) cannot get too much of Rowling, but one could not help wishing that there was such a thing as a “director’s cut” of this book for later. The book would have been better with less on the first read as one grew impatient in the middle with more “Harry is morose” than was needed.
Yet still . . . Rowling sustained our interest over hundreds of pages (though the word count is pretty scanty on those pages!) as well as anyone. She wrote strong characters as well as any children’s fantasy writer before her . . . though (unexpectedly) her female characters were not as strong as her male characters.
It is the people one remembers about the Potter books . . . (which is not true about Narnia where Narnia is the star) . . . and some of the people are classics of children’s literature. The Potter books are often first-rate portraits with second-rate frames in a slap-dash room.
Her books were plotted with Dickensian care. Unlike many reviewers I thought her “alternative world” or myth not so carefully contrived or convincing, but it was fun . . . and this sense of fun and the care taken in all the jolliness to keep the clock-work plot moving . . was done with enough mental dash that we granted her premise.
I think there are three things that the series (as a whole) taught that I will add to my previous list:
First, Potter is sometimes described as merely “lucky” and some in our meritocracy have resented him for it. Harry does not “deserve” his starring role, but he gets it.
Harry shows that the “mediocre” or merely “above average” can become great if they persevere in learning virtue.
Harry is saved by his mother not because he has great merit, but because she loves him. Mothers don’t love their sons because they deserve it, but because they are their sons.
That is enough. Others love Harry for the sake of his mother and father, but eventually learn his merit.
What is that merit? Harry does not think himself the “chosen one” based on his skills. He perseveres and so learns courage, moderation, practical wisdom, justice, faith, hope, and love. He is great in character and it is better to be good than to get the best marks in wizarding.
Second, there are worse things that can happen to a man than an honorable death. Christians believe this . . . as did the noble pagans, but it is message badly needed in our secular age. Rowling drives this point home as she paints the damage one does to the soul (as well I know!) when one acts shamefully.
There is another world with swift and true judgments and no magic can fool it.
If Harry had died, then it would have been better than clinging to life as a Death Eater.
Finally, the character of Dumbledore is one of the best in children’s fiction. His life is complex and he is a flawed man, but a hero because he learns to live with his flaws. His life reminds us that out of great error can come a life of genuine service and heroism. Acceptance of pain and of limits can produce a life well lived. This is (of course) true of Snape and of several other characters as well.
Is the series a classic?
Perhaps, but I would bet against it (though narrowly).
Time will tell and the century needed for the judgment will not allow me to know if I am wrong, but I suspect fame will carry it fifty years, where it will have the relationship to books like Lord of the Rings that Agatha Christie now has to the creator of Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Agatha Christie was a fine writer . . . one of best “fun reads” of her time. Is there anyone who helped some of us make good use of airplane time (in the age before hand held movies and games) than Christie?
She was not, however, creative or seminal in the same way as Doyle. His London of 1890 is less dated than her London of the 1930’s! For quite a few, Christie remains a good read. . . but she is “merely” that.
In the same way, I suspect the Potter books will remain ripping good reads for those who can get over the period references (as one does in Christie!) and as absolutely necessary to understand the period if only for their sales (Christie sold her millions too) and the hype, but not classics.