Everybody Hates The Epilogue
Toon
according to fantasy novelist Lev Grossman, and it's all because of
happy endings. Spoilers ahead for those who still haven't read the
Deathly Hallows!
Grossman explained his disappointment in JK Rowling's choice of future
for her boy hero to Newsarama.com:
I loved Harry Potter, but that epilogue was such an astounding
failure of imagination on Rowling's part! And in a way, it throws the
entirety of all seven novels into doubt retroactively.
I felt the problem she failed to solve was the question of,
"here's a young man who can do magic, who has defeated the enemy of
humanity when her was 18 � what's the rest of his life look like?" And
the best she can imagine is that he marries his high school sweetheart
and puts on a big gut and lives in the suburbs. What a disaster!
He went on to say,
There has to be some better fate for Harry Potter than what he
gets. I think that's something of the message of [Grossman's new book]
The Magicians � you're not going to go to Narnia, but there has to be
something better than that bourgeois suburban mediocrity that seems
like the only alternative."
See, the problem is, we learn the really cool stuff from interviews
and what not, not the book itself. The epilogue might as well just
said Our heroes get married, have kids, and take them to Kings Cross
each year.
Here in Minnesota!
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:mkjlf5hadlhdibnev...@4ax.com...
> "Harry Potter's magic disappeared before the end of his final book,
> according to fantasy novelist Lev Grossman, and it's all because of
> happy endings. Spoilers ahead for those who still haven't read the
> Deathly Hallows!
>
> Grossman explained his disappointment in JK Rowling's choice of future
> for her boy hero to Newsarama.com:
>
> I loved Harry Potter, but that epilogue was such an astounding
> failure of imagination on Rowling's part! And in a way, it throws the
> entirety of all seven novels into doubt retroactively.
>
> I felt the problem she failed to solve was the question of,
> "here's a young man who can do magic, who has defeated the enemy of
> the best she can imagine is that he marries his high school sweetheart
> and puts on a big gut and lives in the suburbs. What a disaster!
>
> He went on to say,
>
> There has to be some better fate for Harry Potter than what he
> gets. I think that's something of the message of [Grossman's new book]
> something better than that bourgeois suburban mediocrity that seems
> like the only alternative."
>
>
> See, the problem is, we learn the really cool stuff from interviews
> and what not, not the book itself. The epilogue might as well just
> said Our heroes get married, have kids, and take them to Kings Cross
> each year.
Interesting article. I was too disappointed with the epilogue but not in the
way of Grossman article. It's like the "is the glass half empty of half
full?". Grossman sees Harry's life empty after killing the dark lord... but
Harry got exactly what he wanted his whole life... a large loving family and
a quiet life.
mag3
>Interesting article. I was too disappointed with the epilogue but not in the
>way of Grossman article. It's like the "is the glass half empty of half
>full?". Grossman sees Harry's life empty after killing the dark lord... but
>Harry got exactly what he wanted his whole life... a large loving family and
>a quiet life.
Precisely. The last sentence of the Epilogue says it all. I think JKR wrote
exactly what she wanted to (ie. Harry living his "Mirror of Erised" objective...
with a small twist.... It's He and Ginny.... not his parents that have the loving
family)..
My only disappointment was not having full and complete closure on more
of the characters.... specifically, the surviving "adults" in Harry's life. In many
ways, I identified more with them than with Harry's age group (being in that
adult age group) ;-) We hear about Hagrid. But we don't know officially what
happened to the other professors, the Weasley parents, etc etc. Although I
understand from a Wikipedia Article, the "Tales. of Btl The Bard" that JKR makes
reference to McGonagal getting permanent "Headmistress" at least for a time...
But being "retired" by the time of the epilogue. My ideal scenario is having
Harry bump into an old woman on Platform 9.75 after he sees off the kids, and
it's McGonagal, who sees the inactive scar and knows that truly, "all is well."
Nah....... too Hollywood! ;-))))]
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Deevo
> according to fantasy novelist Lev Grossman, and it's all because of
> happy endings. Spoilers ahead for those who still haven't read the
> Deathly Hallows!
>
> Grossman explained his disappointment in JK Rowling's choice of future
> for her boy hero to Newsarama.com:
>
> I loved Harry Potter, but that epilogue was such an astounding
> failure of imagination on Rowling's part! And in a way, it throws the
> entirety of all seven novels into doubt retroactively.
>
> I felt the problem she failed to solve was the question of,
> "here's a young man who can do magic, who has defeated the enemy of
> the best she can imagine is that he marries his high school sweetheart
> and puts on a big gut and lives in the suburbs. What a disaster!
>
> He went on to say,
>
> There has to be some better fate for Harry Potter than what he
> gets. I think that's something of the message of [Grossman's new book]
> something better than that bourgeois suburban mediocrity that seems
> like the only alternative."
>
>
> See, the problem is, we learn the really cool stuff from interviews
> and what not, not the book itself. The epilogue might as well just
> said Our heroes get married, have kids, and take them to Kings Cross
> each year.
Actually the epilogue was one of the least dissapointing parts of book seven
IMO. We learn that Harry got what he wanted from life. What was lacking to
me was how he got there, we went from a tactical victory that was tempered
by some major sacrifices to a 'Happily ever after'. I think a more
immediate epilogue dealing with the cost of the victory but leading into the
final epilogue would have been more appropriate.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
Welsh Dog
wrote:
<snip>
>> See, the problem is, we learn the really cool stuff from interviews
>> and what not, not the book itself. The epilogue might as well just
>> said Our heroes get married, have kids, and take them to Kings Cross
>> each year.
>Actually the epilogue was one of the least dissapointing parts of book seven
>IMO. We learn that Harry got what he wanted from life. What was lacking to
>me was how he got there, we went from a tactical victory that was tempered
>by some major sacrifices to a 'Happily ever after'. I think a more
>immediate epilogue dealing with the cost of the victory but leading into the
>final epilogue would have been more appropriate.
For me it's always been the lack of 'closure' for any of the other
major characters who, whilst they might not have been 'central' to the
plot were nonetheless *very* important in its development!
For example the Dursleys are a stand out omission... and even Mrs
Figg and Mundungus would surely deserve a mention? Also it might have
been nice to hear what happened to Kreacher as well. Did he stay on at
Hogwarts or go to live with Harry and Ginny and serve "The noble house
of Potter"?? :)
Would have been good to have heard what was done to Grimmauld Place
come to that. Did Harry use it?? Did he just abandon it?? Was it
perhaps de-evillified and turned into a rest home for aged
muggle-born wizards or somesuch?? Just side issues but ones that would
have provided 'closure'.
Welshdog
--
Don't just whinge - make your opinion count!
Australian Opinion
http://australianopinion.com.au
fr...@theshire.net
that he has come to understand Snape's bravery. That single line to his
young son is probably the most significant in the whole story, and it
absolutely had to be said. And it's best that it comes years later, if
Harry were to have proclaimed it right after the battle itself it would
have be too trite. He began to understand then, but he truely knows it in
his heart later.
And the rest of the epilog is just gravy. And I do like gravy... ;)
Barry Gray
fr...@theshire.net wrote:
I agree completely. As far as I am concerned the whole story is about
the struggle between Harry and Voldemort, and the story ends when the
struggle ends.
OK I would have liked to have known lots more about what happens to
the other characters, particularly Luna, but, forgive me for saying
this, the same is probably true of almost any book that has ever been
written, except perhaps a book of the form of, say, Who's Who in Late
Mediaeval England, my copy of which isn't exactly bed-time reading.
--
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled
Welsh Dog
But the story didn't stop there! The epilogue tells us about Harry 19
years later. If the story had ended at Hogwarts it might have been
acceptable... but what she *did* do was really unfair to those of us
who'd lived Harry's life along with him! :)
mag3
>>I agree completely. As far as I am concerned the whole story is about
>>the struggle between Harry and Voldemort, and the story ends when the
>>struggle ends.
[SNIP]
>But the story didn't stop there! The epilogue tells us about Harry 19
>years later. If the story had ended at Hogwarts it might have been
>acceptable... but what she *did* do was really unfair to those of us
>who'd lived Harry's life along with him! :)
I think the point of the epilogue is to demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that
the struggle has ended. Witness, 19 years later, Harry and the other characters
(those she mentions) are indeed living a peaceful, normal life. Truly, "All was well."
Harry is blissfully realizing his "Mirror of Erised" objectives.... with a slight twist....
it's his nuclear family, not him and his parents.
That said, I do wish we'd have been given a bit more intel on the fates of the
"adults" in the story, with whom I identified more often and closely than the kids.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Toon
wrote:
>
>Would have been good to have heard what was done to Grimmauld Place
>come to that. Did Harry use it?? Did he just abandon it?? Was it
>perhaps de-evillified and turned into a rest home for aged
>muggle-born wizards or somesuch?? Just side issues but ones that would
>have provided 'closure'.
Yeah, did they ever remove Mrs. B's Picture? I doubt she's happy with
a half blood/pureblood family living in her home.
Toon
I prefer my gravy with meta or bird, not just plain.
richard e white
Besides what happened to grimold place, which I always expected Harry would sell,
I wanted to see what sort of house harry and ginny made. I rather expected the
epolog to happen on that plat form. Although I rather expect Harry and co to be
doing something diffrent. I don't mind seeing the kids, It's just so odd that we
see the second son going rather then the first, and I would have rather liked
seeing a peek at there home as they left to meet up with everyone at plat form
nine and three quarters. s
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!
mag3
>Besides what happened to grimold place, which I always expected Harry would sell,
>I wanted to see what sort of house harry and ginny made. I rather expected the
>epolog to happen on that plat form. Although I rather expect Harry and co to be
>doing something diffrent. I don't mind seeing the kids, It's just so odd that we
>see the second son going rather then the first, and I would have rather liked
>seeing a peek at there home as they left to meet up with everyone at plat form
>nine and three quarters. s
Which strengthens my belief in what I stated above.... That the epilogue was simply
to demonstrate two things - 1) Voldie had been vanquished, leaving no trace of him,
even 19 years later, except for the vestiges of that scar - which facilitates item 2) Harry
in the middle of living his "Mirror of Erised" dream life (Except it's he and Ginny, not
his parents and him). I guess the "steps leading to that point" were unnecessary.
Truly, "All was well."
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
DaveD
"mag3" <zmpmag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b1fsh5ld9v44lokbb...@4ax.com...
True, it does that. But I do so wish JKR would release her original epilogue
so we could read it. On the one hand I'm hoping she might be persuaded to do
it for charity but on the other, I can't really see how it could leveraged
to make money that way as it's not a stand-alone item, unlike the other
charity books she's done, so I suspect it's unlikely. But it would be great
if she did :)
DaveD
mag3
>True, it does that. But I do so wish JKR would release her original epilogue
>so we could read it. On the one hand I'm hoping she might be persuaded to do
>it for charity but on the other, I can't really see how it could leveraged
>to make money that way as it's not a stand-alone item, unlike the other
>charity books she's done, so I suspect it's unlikely. But it would be great
>if she did :)
How much do you think the final epilogue diverted from the original, and where?
I know of only those differences where perhaps mentioning of certain characters
(who were or wern't to survive but did/didn't) might have to be altered, but that's
all I can think of.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> wrote:
Include it in the Scottish Book.
DaveD
"mag3" <zmpmag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fej6j5ts9dnf6jtog...@4ax.com...
ISTR that JKR said she'd written a much longer epilogue but then ditched it
for the very (disappointingly) short one that was published, and somewhere
along the way "scar" moved from being the last word to just being the
subject of the last paragraph.
Sadly I can't recall anything about the original contents :( But... there
is something about it online, eg
"Rowling said her original epilogue was "a lot more detailed," including the
name of every child born to the Weasley clan in the past 19 years.
(Victoire, who was snogging Teddy - Lupin and Tonks' son - is Bill and Fleur's
eldest.)
"But it didn't work very well as a piece of writing," Rowling said. "It felt
very much that I had crowbarred in every bit of information I could . In a
novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything."
- from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/
DaveD
mag3
>> How much do you think the final epilogue diverted from the original, and
>> where?
>>
>> I know of only those differences where perhaps mentioning of certain
>> characters (who were or wern't to survive but did/didn't) might have to be altered,
>> but that's all I can think of.
>
>"Rowling said her original epilogue was "a lot more detailed," including the
>name of every child born to the Weasley clan in the past 19 years.
>(Victoire, who was snogging Teddy - Lupin and Tonks' son - is Bill and Fleur's
>eldest.)
>
>"But it didn't work very well as a piece of writing," Rowling said. "It felt
>very much that I had crowbarred in every bit of information I could . In a
>novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything."
Which convinces me even more that she realized the epilogue should serve only
the two purposes previously mentioned - verify that Voldie had been vanquished
and that no trace of him exists, even after 19 years (except for the vestiges of
Harry's scar), and show Harry right in the middle of living his "Mirror of Erised"
life.... Her two "prime objectives."
I understand her thoughts on "resisting the urge to tell everything." It allows the
reader a chance to exercise their "imagination" a bit (although it can also lead to
a bit of frustration from not hearing the results from the canonical "voice of
authority")..
And it also leaves material available for the much anticipated "sequel" novels... :-)
I'm just not so sure we'll be as lucky in this case. I hope one day she will write
"Hogwarts... A History..." so we may find out some of the things that happened. I
still think she can do that, tell us what we want to know, and yet still maintain her
position on the HP series (and thus, Harry's story) ending with DH.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Edward McArdle
zmpmag...@yahoo.com wrote:
But the film can do in a few seconds what it would take pages to do in a
novel. Simply have everyone together in one place, and happy to be there.
Not necessarily on the station.
--
Edward McArdle
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"But it didn't work very well as a piece of writing," Rowling said. "It felt
>very much that I had crowbarred in every bit of information I could . In a
>novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything."
In school I learned to always give details on your characters, such as
fav color, fav meal, everything a reader might want to know. Hmmmm.
School curriculum by nobodys. World famous author of a world famous
phenomenon. I'll trust JK, even if she's wrong on this one (cutting
back a tad is one thing, what we got is quite another.)
richard e white
Giving everything is a sort of writing practis. It is meant to help a writer
with showing diffrent characters and from that how they will all react
diffrently. However, if you are already good at showing diffrent character doing
diffrent things for diffrent reasons the practis can get in the way.
Thommadura
While that MIGHT be true- the problem with a LONG epilogue is that is
really would not answer the questions that the last book left unanswered
- and it would have opened up more questions than it answered as well.
WE already have so many dead end side stories that adding to the list
would likely be a problem
I continue to believe that it was the side stories that took her OFF the
main plot of the books - that made the last book so unsatisfying.
THere was a time when she said we would be able to figure out the ending
by the end of the 6th book - but that was IMPOSSIBLE without knowledge
that SHE already knew but did not introduce until the last book. In
essence - she had the beginning and the ending - but failed to properly
connect them with the books in between.
So - she needed all of the last book to bring the main plot to an end -
and really had no basis for including a long winded epilogue - when she
never finished LOTS of the side stories.
Thommadura
While it might have been nice to give detail to your characters -that is
something that should have been done BEFORE the end of the book - not in
the last chapters. OF what use would be finding out an important trait
of a character after the story was already finished to begin with?
JKR had the middle books to flesh out the other characters - but she
just added too much superfluous material that really did not contribute
to the main plot - and wasted too much space on those stories.
slifchez
WOW!!! Eye-opener for me. I was thinking of how to respond to this,
regarding the "too much superfluous material" comment, when one of my
own arguments became clear.
I've been asking for ages, "What was the purpose of Grawp?" He showed
up, learned some English, wrecked the forest and then in the Battle of
Hogwarts when the other giants were attacking, he lifted Hagrid up
through a window. I expected more, maybe he'd attack some DEs head-on
(considering Hagrid's resistance to magic, Grawp's should be that much
better) or maybe he'd convince the other giants to save Hagrid and
Hogwarts. Nope. Nothing.
I now see why he was there. He told us Hagrid's life story. No more,
no less. It's just the kind of background that we're clamoring for in
the epilogue. What happened to the other students? What happened to
the teachers? The Dursleys? Arthur and Molly? Buckbeak? Kreacher? #12?
So many questions unanswered, but not so much about Hagrid. We're not
asking "Does he still have a giant family? or Will he go searching for
his mother? We already know and it was told to us through his search
for the giants and through Grawp's story. Brilliant!
Honestly, I think of the number of pages that JKR wrote about Grawp
and I can't help but wonder how great it would be to have the same
amount of info about, say, Luna or Neville or Peeves or any other
character in the Potterverse. I understand that it's just not feasible
in the 7-book series to do it, although most of us fans would love to
see it.
Anyway, as for the "too much superfluous material" in the stories,
that to me is what made these books great! There were plenty of side
stories in the first few books that simply introduced us to, and even
immersed us in, Harry's magical world. One of my favorite scenes in
the entire series was Nearly Headless Nick's Deathday party. Nothing
happened there that influenced any major plotline (Harry could've
heard voices anywhere in the school) but it was just a fun bit of
everyday "life" at Hogwarts that we got to see.
These types of side stories were common in the first few books, but
seemed to vanish towards the end of the series. I think that's what I
found wrong with Deathly Hallows. Everything that happened in book 7
had a reason. The story took a straight line from finish to end and
sort of lost it's fun factor that came from characters and events that
were just there for the heck of it..
There are a million books out there about the "diamond in the rough"
overcoming his/her shortcomings and ending up the hero, but it's
everything else that happens in the story that makes it great. J.K.
Rowling showed us an incredible world. She didn't just tell us a story
about what happens to this kid named Harry Potter, she took us into
his world and let us be a part of it. To me, the superfluous material
is what makes this such a unique and great series.
Shannon
And no, I didn't like the epilogue. I wanted to know more about life
19 years after Hogwarts... I want more superfluosity! :>)
Yellow
@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, sha...@lifchez.com says...
>
> On Jan 7, 5:24 pm, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > On 1/3/2010 11:55 PM, richard e white wrote:
> >
> > JKR had the middle books to flesh out the other characters - but she
> > just added too much superfluous material that really did not contribute
> > to the main plot - and wasted too much space on those stories.
>
> WOW!!! Eye-opener for me. I was thinking of how to respond to this,
> regarding the "too much superfluous material" comment, when one of my
> own arguments became clear.
<snip>
That was a really interesting read and although I didn't know it until I
read your post - I agree!
Toon
<sha...@lifchez.com> wrote:
>These types of side stories were common in the first few books, but
>seemed to vanish towards the end of the series. I think that's what I
>found wrong with Deathly Hallows. Everything that happened in book 7
>had a reason. The story took a straight line from finish to end and
>sort of lost it's fun factor that came from characters and events that
>were just there for the heck of it..
The books are like 3 separate continuities. 1, 2-4, 5-7. I get 1
being a bit self contained since there was never guarantee it'd ever
get published (in fact, took some 30 tries and an interesting paper
clip.) Just don't think the rest should be so easily divided. Maybe
that's why a lot of people hated 5. It was the turning point in the
series. From fun to dark, child to adult.
santosh
Actually someone has died in every book. In the first one it was Prof.
Quirrell, then Voldemort's soul bit in book two, Buckbeak in three,
Cedric, Frank, and Crouch (father & son) in four, Sirius in five,
Dumbledore and Hestia in six, and ofcourse, a bloodbath in seven.
But IMO, the books took a recognisably "darker" turn from the Goblet.
The cold-blooded murder of Bryce and the entire graveyard scene was
*much* darker than anything else upto that point. The deaths up till
book three were all off-scene and no one really felt for Quirrell or
the soul-bit, but book for really slapped murder scenes in our faces.
And wormtail's self mutilation was horrid to read, as well as Moody
killing and torturing the spiders, and even the bouncing ferret for
that matter.
The death of Sirius actually didn't shock me as much as that of Bryce
or Cedric. Both the latter two were cold-blooded murder of innocent
and relatively helpless victims, while Sirius was armed and knew what
he was getting himself into.
Just because Harry is more attached to Sirius doesn't mean the readers
were so. Sirius's death was a flat affair to me. There one moment,
gone the next. No body, no injuries, no rushing to hospital, no
burial, no eulogy, nothing. Pretty sad in a way. Peter, Sirius and
Snape were given really wretched lives by Rowling. While Peter
deserved what he got, and even Snape to an extent, since he did seek
the Dark knowingly, Sirius was dealt a very bad deal right after
Hogwarts.
santosh
It was also book four in which "romance" first appeared. This is a
further point for saying book four was the turning point from a
children's series to teenagers.
Toon
<santo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just because Harry is more attached to Sirius doesn't mean the readers
>were so. Sirius's death was a flat affair to me. There one moment,
>gone the next. No body, no injuries, no rushing to hospital, no
>burial, no eulogy, nothing. Pretty sad in a way.
I never understood what was so bad about Siirus' death. JK just over
hyped the mysterious death. He passed through an arch. And now he's
dead. No screams, no body on the other side, no teleportation
elsewhere (on Earth.) Just happened. Hard to believe he was even
dead. Nothing even established on the Arch to know you go through on
a one way trip. Siirus fell through the arch. Oh, and by the way,
once you do your dead. That's it. Moving on now, Harry's really
angry.
Here in Minnesota!
"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e36d2791-dea6-4f17...@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
-snip-
> Actually someone has died in every book. In the first one it was Prof.
> Quirrell, then Voldemort's soul bit in book two, Buckbeak in three,
> Cedric, Frank, and Crouch (father & son) in four, Sirius in five,
> Dumbledore and Hestia in six, and ofcourse, a bloodbath in seven.
I agree the later ones are darker. While there may have been deaths in the
early books... the first death of someone you got to know, who was not evil
was in book 4. You find out about Harry's parents death in book 1 but it
really isn't described to much until book 3 or 4.
mag3
That, and Buckbeak really didn't die in book 3. He was just condemded to die.
He cheated death, with a little help from his friends.... :-)
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold