Pondering...

Am I reviving this blog? Seriously?

Book 7 Mania - SPOILERS AHEAD

Those of you weirdos who haven't finished the book, be warned! Here be spoilers. Welcome to the post-Book 7 post! This might all be a little random and disjointed, but here are some of my thoughts.

Working backwards here, but I really liked the epilogue. I know we all wanted every single little detail, but that seems unrealistic and silly. The epilogue did a great job - I thought - at giving us just enough of a glimpse into the characters' lives to see that they end up happy. And I think the sort of normalcy of it underscored the significance of Harry's choice: he chose to have the relatively normal, loving family that he'd always wanted, rather than taking off with the Elder wand. It brings it back to what Dumbledore tells him after the "dies," about how so few people have looked into the Mirror or Erised and seen something so pure as what Harry saw. So it's kind of funny that some people have complained that the epilogue is boring - isn't that what Harry wanted?

The entire book was great, but a couple of quotations that I especially loved. Among them:
1. "NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU BITCH!" (Mrs. Weasley)
2. "Really gives a feeling for the scope and tragedy of the thing, doesn't it?" (Ron)
3. "So why in the name of Merlin's saggy left --" (Ron). (I assume that the omitted word is "testicle." Am I wrong? Is there a more appropriate, but less funny, noun that also fits? Because I think that "Merlin's saggy left testicle" might be my new swear phrase.)
4. "'Death's got an Invisibility Cloak?' Harry interrupted again.
'So he can sneak up on people,' said Ron. 'Sometimes he gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking . . . '"
5. Also - this isn't a quotation in the same way - but I loved "Here lies Dobby, a free elf."

I loved the way that the situation with Snape played out. One thing that's so great about the books is that, from the very beginning, all of the characters have been flawed, including the adults. Everyone loves a good anti-hero, and I think that's why we all love Snape, even with all his imperfections. Which brings me to another point, how I liked really seeing, at the end, what Dumbledore meant about how love is more powerful than any magic. And how Voldemort was blind to that fact, how he never realized that abusing Draco would cause the Malfoys to betray him.

Also . . . Alia and I bounced this around a little, so I'll go ahead and put evidence of our nerdiness on the web. People, do we think it's possible that Harry and Ginny's little excursions at the end of Book 6 might have gone a little farther than we'd previously suspected? Just take a look, for example, at pages 89-90.

In non-Harry Potter news, I just wanted to say a special hello to Jessa!! Congrats honey!

A Brief Digression

I know I said I'd be posting about Harry Potter, but indulge me in this extremely brief vent. The Bar Exam is in a week and, obviously, it's taking up like 95% of my time. I've been doing a lot of practice multiple choice questions, and I'd like to comment on something that I find extremely annoying -- the use of names in the practice questions.

Here's the thing: if you need to name some people for a hypothetical ("Jane and Doe are riding their bikes when Bob, who is driving negligently, strikes Jane with his car") it is nice to use names that are (1) easy to remember and (2) easily identifiable as male or female. Because if "Griddle, Ozarka, and Blue" are involved in a conspiracy and then all of a sudden "she decides to confess" I HAVE NO BLOODY IDEA WHO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Is "Griddle" a woman's name? Or Ozarka? Blue? Seriously, it's super confusing and it annoys me that I have to spend time just figuring out who is who, when I should be figuring out who is liable.

Here are some of the actual names used in some of the practice questions:
1. Aiken, Bacon & Cogg
2. Panda
3. Menachem
4. Rogan Josh (yes, this is the name of an Indian food)
5. Orizaba
6. Biddlebaum

Things unknown . . . .

Okay, anonymous poster's theory (see Comment to previous post) would tie up a LOT of loose ends, but here are some others that I think are interesting:

1. JK has said that it's very important that Harry has his mother's eyes. No idea yet what that could be about. She also said that Lily's wand was especially good for charms.

2. JK has said one important question no one has asked is why Dumbledore had James' invisibility cloak. Was D there the night Harry's parents died??

3. What was with the "gleam of triumph" in D's eyes when Voldie was able to touch Harry without being burned? My guess is that this indicated Voldie had become more human/killable.

4. There was one character that was going to be cut from Movie 5, but JK advised that doing so might create problems for later movies. If you've seen Movie 5, you know that Kreacher is in the movie, but he has no part of the plotline, so everyone is guessing that JK was talking about him. What will Kreacher do in Book 7? I'm wondering if maybe he'll help them find the locket.

5. What will become of Percy?

6. This relates to the Snape-is-connected-to-Lily thing, but why would Voldie have spared Lily?

There's a full list of open questions listed on Mugglenet.

Just for Dean - will Harry survive?

Oh, the speculation! Will poor Harry lose his own life in the fight against Voldie? People seem pretty split on this issue; I'd say at least a third of the HP readers think Harry is going to die. Dan Radcliffe has even said that he hopes Harry dies. And that when he dies, he's naked. And cuddling with a horse.

All that aside, I'm pretty skeptical. Again, not putting it past JK, but it just doesn't make sense. People keep saying that this is a "christ-story" as evidence that Harry will die, but I don't find HP to have nearly as much connection with Christian imagery and metaphor as many other books. And even many blatant christ-stories don't include the death of the savior. Case in point: Aragorn, LotR. He's tested, he has to sacrifice, but he lives through the book and gets to boink Liv Tyler. What I mean is that there are many ways to tell a story about a prophesised redeemer, and many of the ones we're familiar with don't include the hero being killed.

But my real skepticism comes from something much more technical. Throughout the novels, we only see what Harry sees - with 2 exceptions. (1) The interaction between the human and magical ministers (2) Snape's conversation with Bellatrix and Narcissa. Aside from thos conversations, we have no insight beyond what Harry experiences. If you're writing a book that's almost a first-person narrative without actually being in first-person, what do you write when the character dies. Would JK just switch to a more omniscient voice in the final chapters? Wouldn't that be obvious and annoying? Would she write a bunch of Book 7 like that? It wouldn't seem to flow very well with the other 6 books, would it. Technically, I can't think of a good way to make that work (which certainly doesn't say much.) Maybe have the very last words of the next-to-final chapter be Harry's dying thoughts? (JK has said that the very last chapter is sort of a prologue with info about what happens in the lives of the characters in future years.)

I think what's most likely is that Harry will have to sacrifice something really, really big. Ginny? Ron? Or maybe something we haven't even thought of. Regardless, let's all keep out fingers crossed that I'm right, and that Harry defeats Voldemort, marries Ginny, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Harry Potter Countdown: 5 days to go

Theory #1: Ron will die.

I know that would totally suck, but it kind of makes sense. JK is pretty good at foreshadowing, and I can't help but think about the first Harry-Voldie confrontation. The way it played out was that Ron sacrificed himself so that Harry could go on, and circumstances prevented Hermione from taking the final step with Harry. That exchange does seem to kind of define the relationship between them. So I wouldn't be surprised if Ron dies, Hermione for some reason can't go on, and - I think - Harry will have to do the final killing of Voldie without either of them.

Theory #2: Snape is somehow connected to Lily Potter.

This has been pretty played out on the net, but I think it makes sense. Dumbledore told Harry that after Snape realized the prophesy meant Voldie would go after the Potters, he tried to fix things and ended up betraying the Death Eaters. Why would Snape give a rat's ass if Lily and James got killed? We know he hated James. But the memory in the Penseive (the sort of put on aloofness between Lily and Snape) is good evidence that there's some connection. Are they related? Was Snape in love with Lily? Who knows. Also notice (if you're re-reading this week) that when Harry questioned D about Snape's allegiance, D seemed to be considering something before re-affirming that Snape is a good guy. Perhaps he was considering whether or not to let Harry in on his mother's connection with Snape

Theory #3: Hagrid will die.

I have no basis for this in anything. Just a gut feeling.

Theory #4: Fawkes will somehow help Harry on his journey/ Harry is the heir of Gryffindor.

I guess these are two separate issues but - hey! - it's my blog. The heir if Gryffindor idea is also tossed around the net a lot, and while it might seem too obvious it certainly would make sense.

Theory #5: Neville was present when Harry's parents were killed.

Here's the thing. We know Nev's parents were powerful, very strong wizards. This seems to lead to strong wizard children. Nev is extremely forgetful, and JK has casually thrown in the fact that an overly powerful memory charm can permanently damage a person's abilities, notably their memory. Note also that Nev can see thestrals, and when asked who he's seen die he very evasively answers that he's seen his grandfather die (or was it his uncle?). Even if Voldie, after hearing the beginning of the prohesy, felt it more likely that Harry was his nemesis, you'd think he would at least plan to kill both babies, just to be safe. Why not grab Neville and then head on over to the Potters? The only kink in this theory is that witnessing death as a baby doesn't seem to be "witnessing death" in the way that gives rise to thestral-seeing. Although JK herself has said that it's about when you see death and it "sinks in."

Theory #6: Each book has had Harry coming into contact with one of the six horcruxes.

There are six horcruxes for the first 6 books, and already we can pin down that in three of the six books, Harry comes into contact with a horcrux --
Book 1: ??
Book 2: the diary.
Book 3: ??
Book 4: Nagini
Book 5: the locket
Book 6: the ring
Book 7: The part that is Voldie?
So the guess is that the cup and the unknown something-of-Gryffindor-or-Ravenclaw are in Books 1 and 3.

More tomorrow - what are your theories?

Farewell, feathered friend

So much has been said/written about the ridiculousness that is the Western media that there's pretty much nothing I can add. So I usually make my smartass comments on the news to myself. Or, you know, over a frosty Dr. Pepper with my pal Jon Stewart. I have, however, often mentioned my love-hate relationship with CNN.com. I love it because it's hysterical, in that so-screwed-up-it's-funny kinda way. "The Iraqi Parliament got bombed but the main stories are Imus getting fired and something else about Anna Nicole Smith's baby?? Those crazies at CNN!" On the other hand, I hate it for the same reasons. But, I do read CNN.com daily, along with a couple other news sites.

Despite my attempt at keeping mum, I have to comment on this story. In case clicking on the hyperlink is too much effort (how lazy! ugly baby judges you!) I'll give you the recap: Dick Cheney's plane hit a bird but everyone was okay. That's it. That's the entire story. So I ask you: why was this a link off of CNN's homepage? Is there really nothing else going on in the world? Furthermore, most of the story has nothing to do with the bird. Let me share with you a highlite from this gem of journalistic expression:

"Cheney posed for pictures with little girls while Liz Cheney secured a doll with a Western cowboy hat and get-up."

Ummm . . . . ooookay. That's . . . . good to know? Mildly entertaining? What? What am I supposed to be getting from this, CNN? Because what I'm getting is that, somewhere, there's a lower level CNN.com writer with a wicked sense of humor who enjoys making a mockery of the ridiculous assignments he or she is given. (Note to self: make friends with this person).

I also love this comment from Cheney's people:

"A bird hit the right engine of the plane upon landing . . . . He was told after he delivered his remarks."

I love love LOVE that, apparently, Cheney's people weren't sure how to tell him that his plane killed a bird. "Oh, poor Dick. He's going to be so devastated! I mean, it was just an innocent bird - oh, how are we going to tell him! He won't be able to handle this! Wait - I know! We'll just wait to tell him until after he makes his speech. That way he won't start crying in the middle of the big event! Whew. Glad we dodged that bullet."

i carry your heart

It feels strange being almost done with law school. As fellow law students and former law students know, your first two years or so are pretty good at narrowing your vision. It's hard to see past the next semester's final exams, or the upcoming set of interviews, let alone think about being done altogether. And then, all of a sudden, it's the beginning of April and you have less than six weeks left of the bizarre experience that is law school.

I have two good friends planning to start law school in the Fall, and it's funny to see them at the beginning of the process. They're both very excited. I remember that. During your first month of law school, the excitement is gradually replaced with terror. And sleepiness. And lots and lots of coffee.

I'm not going to wax poetic here about the entire experience, the pros and cons and the things I learned. But, surprisingly, finishing law school isn't turning out to be the glorious relief that every 2L waits for. All of a sudden it's hitting me that most of my friends from law school are leaving, and not in the moving-to-dallas-and-i'll-visit-often way. They're going away to semi-distant lands. Taking bar exams in other states, even. A number of my closest non-law school friends might be leaving as well. I love living in Austin, and being here is right for Matt and me, but it sucks when you have to make a new group of friends every four years or so as old friends leave town. For me it seems to be the girls that always leave. And don't get me wrong - I love my male friends, and I feel extremely blessed to have such wonderful people in my life. But who will I call when Nordstrom's has a shoe sale? Or when I hear a great name for my future hypothetical offspring?

I know that even if everyone who might possibly leave Austin in the next six months ends up leaving, there'll still be new friends to make. And there will be vacations to visit each other, and weekends trips, conferences, and all the other opportunities for spending time with the people I care about. But my friends are precious to me. I don't think there's anyone in the world who has girlfriends and wonderful as I do, and it hurts my heart to anticipate the void that will be in my life when this group of them moves away.

This week my two best friends from high school and I have been emailing each other on and off. One is already far away and the other is one who'll be moving elsewhere in Texas very soon. When we graduated from high school, I never had any doubt that the three of us would stay in touch. And I feel the same way about my other close girlfriends. We'll stay close, we'll laugh across phone lines, and relationships will evolve. But right now the idea of it just feels a little lonely. The past three years have been full of surprises, but the most wonderful surprise was the friends who've been there for me throughout law school.

Recently I saw a sappy chick-flick type of movie, the kind that I normally avoid, and I got another surprise when I started crying at the end. The movie is about sisters, and it very effectively used one of my favorite E.E. Cummings poems to expain the relationship between the sisters. And I thought of my friends, and how much I love them. I carry their hearts with me (I carry them in my heart.)