Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
Why Didn't Harry Die?
No, The protective charm on harry cast due to lily's love was no longer effective in protecting harry from Voldemort since the goblet of fire, when Voldemort was resurrected from Harry's blood.Why Harry didn't die when he was hit with the death curse was because, Harry at that time was owner of the deathly Hallows (the elder want, the cloak of invisibility and the resurrection stone) and if i am not mistaken, anyone who owned the hallows could master death. That is why Harry didn't die and the death curse killed the part of Voldemort's soul in him.
I never got that part, I always thought that was the stone that kept him alive, but he let go of the stone before going with you-know-who, or just luck that you trust the stone, that he died with the horcrux but using the stone he revive him self up, cause dumbledore tells that it is foolish thing to make a horcrux out of a living thing, cause if it dies, the horcrux dies also, like nagani.
As far as i remember,all the hallows were create by death himself and the whole idea of creating them was to beat death. And as per the legend anyone who possessed all the three hallows would master death. And thats why Harry eventually turned out to be the owner of all the hallows and thus could come out alive the death curse. Harry did drop the stone, but he still was the owner.
Very true, didn't think about that!
Thank you!
Thank you!
The curse was cast by Voldemort, but Lily sacraficed herself and so the curse wasn't effective.Voldemort was injured greatly by this, and only lived because he had Horcruxes.
When Voldemort was weakened, a part of him, as Dumbledore explains, latched on to the nearest living thing - Harry himself. That made Harry a Horcrux.
So, when Voldemort tried to kill him again, he failed as a Horcrux was in Harry, and so Voldemort didn't kill Harry - he simply destroyed the last bit of himself (Horcrux) which was in Harry.
I think it searched out the soul fragment as it was strong (it was taking over Harry - especially in Order of the Pheonix) and was prominent. Other than that, I agree with Usha.
The curse was no longer affective when the Dursley's and he went their separate ways. Remember that is why he had to live with those gawd awful relatives because Lily's blood ran in her sister's and protected him. Dumbeldore sent her that letter explaining all of that to her and it was revealed in the last book. That is why everything was timed so precisely when the Dursley's left and the Order came to take him away from their home.
I thought that Harry stayed alive because in Goblet of Fire, Voldemort rebuilds himself from the "blood of his enemy", Harry's blood. It is then Harry's blood in Voldemort that tethers Harry to the living, like a horcrux would. Remember the "twinkle" in Dumbledore's eye at the end of Fire when Harry told him that Voldemort had taken his blood?
No, Voldemort killed the horcrux part of Harry because, yes harry was a horcrux Interesting fact: Why harry awoke on platform 9 3/4 is because that was where he was when he was between his two worlds, the muggle world and the wizard world.
You should know if you read the King's cross chapter. Dumbledore and Harry figure it out. But it was a little confusing, i understand.
Harry explains to Voldemort why the wand won't kill him. That wand is special--it was created by Death. And it won't kill its own master. And Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand.When Voldemort threw the curse at Harry in the forest, the curse killed the only part of Harry that wasn't really Harry--the bit of Voldemort's soul inside him.
u could have also reread the last half of the book...
*please note: I hope this is right. Someone correct me if it's not* The way I always think of it that makes it less confusing to me is like this:When Harry was a baby and Voldemort tried to kill him, the curse rebounded, right? Got it? K.
Well, it made kinda a shell around his soul. Like a green icky gooey evil shell.
I THINK that from that point on, if Voldemort ever hit him with a killing curse, he'd still go to that limbo thing because all that the killing curse would do is break the shell. Then his soul would be just a regular human vulnerable soul.
So when Voldemort hit him with the killing curse, it broke the shell. It also knocked Voldemort out because it killed a piece of his soul (Harry was a horcrux).
Right? Right?
I agree with Emma. The first time in DH in the forest it is a combination of the fact that Voldemort had Harry's Blood and Harry had a piece of Voldemort's soul. In the Great Hall the Elder wand won't kill its master. Harry is its master because he won its allegiance through Draco who disarmed Dumbledore in the end of HBP.
In the King's Cross chapter, Harry asked Dumbledore this exact question. The answer has nothing to do with Hallows.Harry didn't die because Voldemort used Harry's blood to resurrect himself, taking Harry's mother's protection inside him. This made it so Voldemort can touch Harry, but it also tied Harry to life for as long as Voldemort lives.
there are two options for me.1 - When Harry went to the Dark Forest, he owned all three Deathly Hallows. He was the owner of stone, cloak and wand. So if the myth was true - he was immortal.
2 - When Vold. used Harry's blood for resurrection, he started to carry Lily's blood too. The protection charm works "when Harry is with a person who carries her mother's blood in a place where both call as their home." Hogwarts is the only place that is called "home" by Vold. and Harry. As Voldemort carries the blood of Harry - therefore Lily's - the charm may still work.
The legend doesn't say the deathly hallows makes one immortal. It says they make one the master of death. The idea that Master of Death means immortal is merely an assumption or interpretation. That is not stated anywhere.
well
harry was a horocrux
so when he tried to kill harry he basically killed part of himself not harry.
harry was a horocrux
so when he tried to kill harry he basically killed part of himself not harry.
I believe it was that he was the owner of all three hallows, therefore making him master of death. I've also thought about the fact that he was a horcrux, and it would make sense. It just killed one of the two souls he had inside of him. Either explanation makes sense, but I'm not sure which one is the actual answer.
Emma wrote: "I believe it was that he was the owner of all three hallows, therefore making him master of death. I've also thought about the fact that he was a horcrux, and it would make sense. It just killed on..."Neither. It was because Voldemort used Harry's blood in his resurrection. That kept Lily's protection alive as long as Voldemort was alive. Dumbledore explained this in King's Cross.
The Hallows were simply a macguffin. Harry became the Master of Death because he learned that death was not something to fear. This was the lesson of the story of the three brothers. The third brother learned that death was not to be feared but embraced at the proper time. Harry learned that death was not to be feared because there was another life afterward. The only use the Hallows had was in teaching him that lesson. That's why he rejected both the stone and the wand and attempted to rid the world of them.
Harry didn't die because she couldn't kill him. The story called for it and it would have been better ending, but in the end she just couldn't pull the trigger.
Michele wrote: "I thought that Harry stayed alive because in Goblet of Fire, Voldemort rebuilds himself from the "blood of his enemy", Harry's blood. It is then Harry's blood in Voldemort that tethers Harry to th..."i agree with this explanation.
Dumbledore said this in the King's Cross Chapter of Deathly Hallows:
"He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily’s protection inside both of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!"
Stephanie wrote: "Harry didn't die because she couldn't kill him. The story called for it and it would have been better ending, but in the end she just couldn't pull the trigger."Of all the explanations, this is the one I have always felt was true. You can use whatever twisted crazy made up magic laws you want, but in the end, it was the author's inability to kill a character she created and loved.
Is this seriously that hard to understand? Like a few people in this thread pointed out, it's explained in the King's Cross chapter. Voldemort took Harry's blood and rebuilt his body with it, which means he also took in Lily's protection. In effect, he made himself a horcrux for Harry and tethered him to life. Harry couldn't die while Voldemort still lived.End of story.
Austin is right, but that's not the only reason. Because Harry chose to die, and because he was a horcrux, he couldn't die. Because he chose to sacrifice himself, he kept the opportunity to stay or go on. That connection may not have been strong enough, however, but that combined with the horcrux thing made it quite definite that Harry was to decide.
Julia wrote: "In the King's Cross chapter, Harry asked Dumbledore this exact question. The answer has nothing to do with Hallows.Harry didn't die because Voldemort used Harry's blood to resurrect himself, tak..."
This is true. As Dumbledore explains in the DH:
When Harry met Voldemort in the woods in DH, there were a lot of factors floating around:
1. Voldemort had used Harry's blood to come back to life. (Blood sacrifice was still there)
2. Harry was a horcrux.
3. Harry had made the choice to die.
So what happened was that Voldemort killed his own horcrux. If you put a horcrux in a living thing and it dies, the horcrux dies but the thing's soul does not. (" If I ran you through with this [Gryffindor's] sword, Ron, your sould wouldn't be damaged at all"~Hermione, DH)
So the horcrux is dead, and Harry's soul is intact. Then, because it was Avada Kedavra, Harry went to an in between place where he could have chosen to die. This happened because, as Dumbledore said, Harry had made the choice to sacrifice himself. He had faced death. The other reason that this happened was because Lily's sacrifice was still living on: the enchantment was strong enough to bring him back.
The Hallows were a different part of the book and unrelated to Harry's almost-death in DH. His experience with the resurrection stone did prepare him for his choice to sacrifice himself, though.
I never liked Dumbledore's explanation in the book about the blood tethering Harry to Voldemort and what not. To me, it makes much more sense to say that Harry was the Master of Death, and therefore, as Luna's father said, could not die.I mean, think of how fitting that explanation is in the context of the story. It's called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, for goodness sake. I doubt that Rowling, being as clever as she is, would title her final book after an insignificant side quest.
This was the only part of the book that I didn't like, and I cannot accept the fact that the Deathly Hallows were altogether meaningless to the story. But Harry being the Master of Death? So poetic.
I think the hallows were an important part of his journey. I think this whole book is really about death: mourning lost loved ones, fearing death, avoiding death, and eventually accepting the inevitability of death and then "greeting Death as an old friend".The hallows were important because they provided a way to avoid death. That's why Harry became so obsessed with them. The moment he chose to go after horcruxes instead - more or less letting Voldemort get the Elder Wand - was the moment he chose to not avoid death, but to accept it and keep living. That is a huge step. How many people would have the courage to make that choice?
The next big step happened when he chose to greet death willingly. It was the path he followed that effectively made him Master of Death. But Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows makes a better title than Harry Potter Masters Death in a Slow, Subtle, Process
On the other hand, can someone explain the significance of waking up in an alternate version of King's Cross? I've always assumed Harry was just imagining everything as he was knocked unconscious, but surely there is a deeper symbolism in all this?
"Then, because it was Avada Kedavra, Harry went to an in between place where he could have chosen to die."Why is it that because the curse was Avada Kedavra Harry had a choice when it came to death?
A bit of a side note, but the Hallows also played quite a significant part in explaining Dumbledore's past, and in revealing him to be less than the saintly figure he was all along depicted to be.
“The true master of the Elder Wand was Draco Malfoy.”Despite this, Voldemort believed that the wand was not performing at the epic level that legend told, and so he ordered his snake Nagini to murder Snape, in order to ensure that the mastery of the Elder Wand would pass to him, since he believed Snape to be the wand's master for killing Dumbledore. However, as Harry Potter, who had been briefly seeking the wand as well, later deduced, its true master at the time of Dumbledore's death had been Draco Malfoy. Furthermore — and unbeknownst to Voldemort — as Harry had subsequently disarmed Draco and taken his wand during the Skirmish at Malfoy Manor (although that was not itself the Elder Wand, it still marked the defeat of the wand's master), the Elder Wand's allegiance had since shifted to Harry.
To end the complications, THE ELDER WAND CANNOT KILL HIS OWN MASTER. That's why Harry didn't die because it was HIS elder wand that Voldemort used to kill him.
Aurelia wrote: "On the other hand, can someone explain the significance of waking up in an alternate version of King's Cross? I've always assumed Harry was just imagining everything as he was knocked unconscious, ..."Dumbledore's spirit said that it appears differently to each person; for Harry, it was a major threshold from the Muggle world to the wizard world in Book 1. There's also a potential crossroads motif, in that Harry has two choices: return to the living or go "on". The whole chapter is rife with allegory.
Aurelia wrote: ""Then, because it was Avada Kedavra, Harry went to an in between place where he could have chosen to die."Why is it that because the curse was Avada Kedavra Harry had a choice when it came to dea..."
What I mean to say is that Avada Kedavra is the killing curse, which by all magical laws is supposed to kill Harry. The way the curse normally works is that you die, so Harry was affected- he went to the in between place because the magical laws said that on one hand, he should die, but on the other hand, there are enough factors floating around (the blood sacrifice, the decision to die) to allow Harry to be allowed to stay on Earth.
And just to recap, I think that it's possible that all people go to the in-between place. The catch is i think is that the choice for them is not to die or come back to life; the choice is to die or to become a ghost. (Quote nearly-Headless Nick) As mentioned above, Harry's case was strong enough to let him stay alive if he wanted.
Also, my Horcruxes, the Truth Amid All the Confusion quiz is based on this stuff- might be helpful.
Just finished re-reading Deathly Hallows yesterday, and Dumbledore explains that Voldermort has taken Lily's protection with him since he used Harry's blood. This means that when he tried to kill Harry, only a portion of Voldemort's soul was affected- and Harry continues to be kept alive by his mother's protection, so as long as Voldermort lives, Harry can't die...I have a question, though. Didn't Dumbledore say that Lily's protection will end by the time Harry comes of age (17) or when he no longer considers Privet Drive his home? And it was supposed to be the point of transferring him to the Burrow....
Liza wrote: "I have a question, though. Didn't Dumbledore say that Lily's protection will end by the time Harry comes of age (17) or when he no longer considers Privet Drive his home?..."Lily's protection guards Harry from harm AT the Dursley house, which is the reason they had to move him to the burrow when he came of age. I do suppose that Lily's protection would fade then, but because Lily's/Harry's blood was used to bring Voldemort back, it lived on. From there, it gave Harry the ability to come back to life, not necessarily immortality against Voldemort.
I'm super confused because albus said how it was idiotic to make a horcruz a living thing because if it dies then the horcrux would die along with it like nagini. sooo when the horcrux in harry died shouldnt he die too? Because thats what happened with nagini, why does he stay alive?Im pretty sure though that the kings cross scene shows that he had the choice to move on but idk how this applies at all to the deathly hallows. yEAH He owns them all but he never used theresurrection stone to come back to life.
Just someone explain to me what are the requirements for lilys charm to stay active, and how did it become? i read that it the charm existed becasue she sacrificed her life for harry, it somehow rebounded, because the killing curse only works on the person you aimed at???
Someone help explain.
Thanks
Sam wrote: "I'm super confused because albus said how it was idiotic to make a horcruz a living thing because if it dies then the horcrux would die along with it like nagini. sooo when the horcrux in harry die..."Hey Sam, I'll try and address your points - some of it's unclear in the canon, but I'll do my best with what I know.
Lily's sacrifice originally protected Harry from the person who tried to murder him - Voldemort - which caused the curse to rebound and also made it impossible for Voldemort to touch Harry. Voldemort then bypassed part of this protection by taking Harry's blood into his body when he was reborn (which is why he could then touch him), but also by doing that he bound Harry to his own life by taking Lily's protection into his own body (Voldemort didn't know this second part would happen and never understood it). A common misunderstanding is that Lily's protection broke when Harry turned 17, but what actually broke was the protection that keeps Harry safe while he is in his relatives care (this was actually a charm cast by Dumbledore, based on Lily's protection, but separate to it - Lily's overall protection of Harry persists after Dumbledore's charm breaks on Harry's 17 birthday).
In terms of why Harry didn't die like Nagini, I think there are two possible explanations. Firstly, as Voldemort bound Harry's life to his own by taking Lily's sacrifice into his own body, he could not kill Harry. Secondly, Harry was master of the Elder Wand, even though he did not possess it, as he had defeated Draco, its previous master. The Elder Wand would not kill its own master, so Harry did not die. In both cases, it seems that Voldemort's killing curse could not kill Harry, but it could kill the only part of Harry that wasn't himself - the part of Voldemort's soul that attached to him as a child.
(Also to clarify, JKR has said Harry was never a Horcrux, Dumbledore just simplified it when speaking to him. Horcruxes are made in a very specific way, Harry's body just housed a part of Voldemort's soul - so he acted like a Horcrux, but he wasn't actually one, strictly speaking. As Harry wasn't actually a Horcrux, this could explain why Voldemort 'felt' this part of his soul being destroyed on this one occasion, and was knocked unconscious after he tried to kill Harry in the forest. The other possibility for Voldemort's reaction is that most of the killing curse's power destroyed the part of Voldemort's soul that was in Harry and the rest, as Harry could not be killed for the reasons stated above, deflected back on Voldemort in weakened state).
As to what the deathly hallows had to do with it, it's unclear, but I would say they had very little to do with it. It's pretty clear that 'Master of Death' doesn't mean Harry was invincible - Dumbledore implied that he misunderstood this himself as a young man: "for the legend said that the man who united all three objects would then be truly master of death, which we took to mean ‘invincible.’" Dumbledore also explain what 'Master of Death' really means "The true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying."
It seems that the Deathly Hallows simply serve to enable Harry's self-sacrifice - the cloak keeps him safe over the years and lets him chose the time and manner of his potential death in the forest; the stone gives him the emotional strength to walk into the forest and face his death; the wand potentially stopped him from being killed by Voldemort in the forest as it would not kill its own master and allowed him to defeat Voldemort at the end, for the same reason. Harry was Master of Death as he did not use these object for personal gain - he did not use the stone to bring back the dead out of longing, but to help him face death; he did not boast about the wand or use it to kill, but used his mastery of it to prevent Voldemort from mastering it and hurting others; and he used the cloak to evade death, protect others and to chose the time when he would face death. The exact power of the deathly hallows and what being 'Master of Death' means is never exactly settled, but it seems that 'Master of Death' is either a parable for accepting mortality or that it will only work in a selfless way, that uniting the Hallows can be used to protect others from death through self-sacrifice. It is certainly clear that using them for personal gain leads to that individual's downfall and it seems pretty clear too that don't make the 'Master of Death' invincible - that would be too crude to fit with everything we learn about them. It's worth noting too that Dumbledore does not think the Hallows were actually given by Death, more likely that they were powerful magical objects made by skilled wizards. As such, if they had any 'power' or 'destiny' which could be conveyed to the 'Master of Death', this was likely to be either a prophecy which may or may not be fulfilled and whose terms were unclear and complicated (as with Harry's own prophecy) or what they convey to those who master them is simply a moral lesson, a much subtler power.
I hope that helps and I'm sorry it's so long winded, but there's a lot to cover! If you want to read more, there's a lot of theories and quote about this from people who know more about this than me on places like scifi.stackexchange.com and harrypotter.wikia.com
Dumbledore talked about having Voldemort killing Harry because he was the horcrux, so as long as the horcrux was in Harry he was part of Voldemort. However, when Voldemort cast the Avada Kedavra spell, it only hit the horcrux because Voldemort was connected to it. Harry was left unscathed.
When Voldemort cast the Avada Kedavra he hit the horcrux within Harry and killed a part of his soul and that was the reason why Harry was left undamaged and didn't die.
Liam wrote: "Sam wrote: "I'm super confused because albus said how it was idiotic to make a horcruz a living thing because if it dies then the horcrux would die along with it like nagini. sooo when the horcrux ..."thanks :)
Harry seems to enter the world of "neither living nor dead" just like Frodo did when he was stabbed by the Morgul blade. Dumbledore seems to be "real" in that he gives Harry more plot info. And there is the weird scrawny monster crawling around and making pitiful noises. So it seems Harry "died" but only in the sense that Miracle Max could resurrect him. Harry was "mostly dead."
Okey I understand what happened to Harry, so if the Horcrux is inside or is a living thing, if you kill the person/animal the horcrux is destroyed right? Then why did they have to kill Nagini with the sword? Was it a coincidence? Theatrical?
I don't think they had to use the sword, but remember how it all happened. Neville's only weapon was the sword, given to him by the Sorting Hat--and the sword seems to be the Hat's go-to weapon for true Gryffindors.
Emma wrote: "I don't think they had to use the sword, but remember how it all happened. Neville's only weapon was the sword, given to him by the Sorting Hat--and the sword seems to be the Hat's go-to weapon for..."You're right :) thanks!
Here goes, Harry did not die for a number of reasons, firstly, Voldemort used Harry's blood to rebuild his body, so now you have both Harry and Voldemort with the protection that Harry's mum created when she sacrificed herself, meaning that they could not kill each other if they defended themselves, Harry went to the forest with the full intention of dying, he wasn't going to defend himself, but unbeknown to both Voldemort and Harry, Voldemort used a wand that belonged to Harry, a wand Harry was master of, so the curse did not work properly, all it did was destroy the part of Voldemorts soul because it was not part of Harry, because Harry had fully intended to die, he was given a choice to live or die, he chose to live and when Voldemort tried to kill Harry in the great hall, Harry decided to defend himself and the curse back fired....the deathly hallows did not make someone immortal, it was a misconception, a lure for fools as Dumbledore put it, Harry could possess the hallows because he had accepted death....that did not make him immortal it simply allowed him to use them to ease his decision to die, after all Dumbledore never mean't Harry to get the elder wand, it was supposed to go to Snape and its power was supposed to die with him because he and Dumbledore had planned it that way, the plan back fired, Malfoy got the wand and in doing so saved Harry from certain death, admittedly a bit of a tenuous link....I think the big question is, did Dumbledore think that he was sending Harry to certain death....? He could never have foreseen the use of the elder wand because he had planned for its power to die...
If he died, there would have been no books. :)
Well, JK Rowling loved Harry and she wasn't veronica roth or John green. So she couldn't bring herself to kill him after killing so many of the others.
The story would have made no sense if he had died. It was meant to be a one vs one with Harry and Voldemort from the very beginning. It wasn't a dystopia that was meant to make a point or a book that was meant to make you think and possibly cry. It's a classic good guy vs bad guy thing- almost like a Western gun-fight.This isn't why he didn't die- this is my take from a writing style perspective.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Hope you understand what I'm trying to say!
})i({