Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
Soooo if Harry was bitten by the Basilisk...spoilers of course.
date
newest »
newest »
Mary ~ I cry over a boyband wrote: "What do you mean exactly?"That if they used the old fangs to destroy hufflepuff's cup (and the diary, and the diadem and probably others), why didn't the basilisk bite affect Harry as a horcrux?
Sure it poisoned him the way it would anyone, but since Harry IS a horcrux shouldn't he have been destroyed instantly like the others?
Mary ~ I cry over a boyband wrote: "Plus it says in the prophecy that only voldemort can kill that bit of his soul in HarryNoone else"
Hmm that's really interesting. I wonder if it means Harry wouldn't have died from the poison either way since there would have still been a horcrux in him.
Or any of the other times.
Course, the snake should still affect the horcrux part..
Of course I realize it's a different case because it was accidental, but it's not really brought up in the books at all so I'm curious what different answers people come up with.
It's best to make a horcrux of something non-living because living things are affected by accident, disease, poison, etc. That's why Nagini was a poor choice for a horcrux because she was destroyed with a slice of the sword.Harry would have died and the horcrux with him, but until Harry was master of the Deathly Hallows, he would stay dead and Voldemort would have won.
Dumbledore needed Harry to master the Hallows so Voldemort could kill the horcrux in him and he could still survive to destroy Voldemort.
Does that make sense?
Very very good point. Indeedy. Hmmm.
Hmmm.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
I don't know.
Hmm.
Oh, wait! I know!
Actually, no I don't.
Hmmm.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
I don't know.
Hmm.
Oh, wait! I know!
Actually, no I don't.
I' d ask JK to explain this. It' s very debate-able. But I agree that living things make questionable horcruxes as Dumbledore says.
Well, the reason Harry could go meet Voldemort in the forest and survive his killing curse was because he was the Master of the Hallows. He could not be killed, but the part of him that was NOT a master of the hallows could definitely be killed.That's the whole reason he was saved until "the right moment".
I think it would have killed him eventually, but Fawkes came along and healed him, of course. And I don't think Harry, as a horcrux, could have died by any other means other than the poison. Even though he's a living horcrux, he would have only died by another means if he actually chose to stay dead. Voldemort didn't kill him with Avada Kedavra, did he? And they did have to use the sword on Nagini. They couldn't kill it with anything else. But yes, I do think he could have died from the poison. But it wouldn't kill him instantly. He'd die slowly like any other living thing, which does make him a bit different than the non-living horcruxes.
Am I making any sense?
Am I making any sense?
Here's the difference:When Harry was hit with the Avada Kedavra in the woods, he was separated from the part of him that was Voldemort's horcrux. He was able to choose to come back because he was the Master of the Hallows.
When he was poisoned with the basilisk venom, he was vulnerable because he did not have the ability to conquer death yet. His body would have died without Fawkes' tears and he would have "gone on." The horcrux may have been able to attach to the nearest living thing--in this case, Ginny.
When we look at Nagini's death, it was twofold: One, the snake was decapitated by the sword and the physical body died. The second, though, was the death of the horcrux with a blade impregnated with basilisk venom. Nagini could have died at any point and the horcrux could have attached itself to any living thing nearby. (Just as Harry became an unintentional horcrux as a baby.)
Having a horcrux inside a living thing is dangerous just for the main reason that living things tend to die eventually, letting loose a portion of your soul to attach to something unknown, which you need to get back in order to resurrect. Or, depending on the means of death, become destroyed with the death of the living thing.
Jeni wrote: "Here's the difference:
When Harry was hit with the Avada Kedavra in the woods, he was separated from the part of him that was Voldemort's horcrux. He was able to choose to come back because he was..."
Okay, that makes sense to me. Gold star to you!
When Harry was hit with the Avada Kedavra in the woods, he was separated from the part of him that was Voldemort's horcrux. He was able to choose to come back because he was..."
Okay, that makes sense to me. Gold star to you!
Jeni wrote: "Here's the difference:When Harry was hit with the Avada Kedavra in the woods, he was separated from the part of him that was Voldemort's horcrux. He was able to choose to come back because he was..."
Yes that is great Jeni, thanks for sorting it out! The Horcrux Deathly Hallow thing can get tangled up so easily!
I thought Harry was able to choose to come back because Voldemort took his blood - and his mother's protection - inside himself. This made Voldemort stronger, but I think it also kept Harry's mother's protection alive long after Harry left his aunt's house. After that point, they were both kinda holding each other to life.I think the basilisk venom failed to kill the horcrux because it failed to kill it's host. If Harry had died, I think the horcrux would have died with him because it was basilisk venom. But then, if Harry had died some other way, the horcrux might have latched onto somebody else. To kill a horcrux, you have to destroy it's container so that it's magically beyond repair. Harry wasn't magically "beyond repair" until he was dead. No magic can bring the dead back to life, just as no magic can repair Riddle's diary, or the locket, etc. But there was still magic that could repair Harry while he was still alive.
I also think the reason Dumbledore insisted that Voldemort had to kill Harry - and not anybody else - is that only Voldemort can destroy his own horcuxes without the aid of something magically destructive like basilisk venom or fiend fire. Basilisk venom or fiend fire would have killed Harry, but Voldemort couldn't kill Harry because of his mother's blood.
While Deathly Hallows confirmed the specific powers of the three hallows, it never confirmed the "master of death" aspect of having all three. In Harry's conversation with Dumbledore, Dumbledore focused on the blood as the reason Harry was still alive. Not that the hallows didn't play their parts, individually, but what they did for Harry as a whole isn't clear. Especially considering that he got rid of the resurrection stone before he faced Voldemort and hadn't really claimed the elder wand yet. The wand may have recognized him as it's true owner, but we don't know that. Either way, he only owned - at most - 2 hallows at the moment Voldemort cast the avada kedavra curse.
There is a very specific reason the last book is called the Deathly Hallows. Because The Hallows is the entire key to Harry's ability to avoid dying in the woods. Only two people have ever had all three Hallows at one time: Dumbledore and Harry. If you remember your wand lore, the Wand chooses the wizard and the Elder Wand had switched its allegiance to Draco when he disarmed Dumbledore and then to Harry when he disarmed Draco (just as Draco's own wand switched allegiance).
He was in possession of the wand, the stone, and the cloak at the same time. Until someone takes possession of any of the others, Harry will be the master of the hallows until he dies a natural death. In the book, Harry specifically asks Dumbledore this question and is assured if nobody claims any of the three, he will be the last owner of the Hallows.
Several enchantments protect young Harry prior to this: His mother's blood (which was mentioned above) and the protection of calling the Dursley's home his own. That's why he had to go back each summer--to renew the enchantment, so to speak.
Voldemort correctly assumed that Harry's blood was special because of Lily and that's why he voided that particular enchantment by using Harry's blood to resurrect himself. Being able to choose to come back is because he was the Master of the three Hallows.
This is expressed clearly in the last book; not so much in the movies. The Wand was his because he disarmed Draco and it switched allegiance to him; the cloak has always been his; and the stone was his because he was able to use it to see his parents and loved ones. Dropping it in the woods did not mean it wasn't his any longer, only that the woods was where he would keep it, so to speak.
Dumbledore never discussed the hallows with Harry and after Voldemort's return using Harry's blood, Dumbledore specifically stated that Voldemort had found a reliable way to overcome that little problem.
"There is a very specific reason the last book is called the Deathly Hallows. Because The Hallows is the entire key to" - that's an assumption, not a fact. The Deathly Hallows are a major part of the story. Also a significant obsession for Harry as soon as he learned about them. Also, one-by-one, they each played a huge part in defeating Voldemort. That doesn't mean they're the key to Harry's survival. The books never established that the "master of death" part of the legend is true, or more accurately, what being "master of death" entails. There is another possible reason for naming the book "the Deathly Hallows". This whole story is not entirely about hallows - but it is nearly entirely about death. The real power of the hallows was not in avoiding death, but in facing death "as an equal". This book (and, really, the whole series) is about dealing with the death of those that we love; dealing with the possibility of one's own death; and accepting the reality of death in your life - and not as an enemy, but more as an old friend."Only two people have ever had all three Hallows at one time: Dumbledore and Harry." - Dumbledore never had all three hallows at one time. He didn't acquire the resurrection stone until nearly 5 years after he gave the cloak back to Harry.
"If you remember your wand lore" - Yes, the wand chooses the wizard. But when? Did the elder wand choose Harry from across the forest while he was talking to his dead family; or sometime sooner? It's possible within the known parameters, I'll grant that. But it's not completely established anywhere. All we know is that it recognized him in the end. I would think that if the wand knew it belonged to Harry when Voldemort cast the avada kedavra curse, the curse would have worked worse than it did. I admit that's just speculation. It could also be that the wand intended to destroy Voldemort's horcrux and not Harry himself. But that's all speculation as well.
I think it chose Harry while Harry was dueling with Voldemort. Or perhaps recognized Harry, as he was using the wand that disarmed Dumbledore. That was only the second time the elder wand had ever faced Draco's wand.
"Harry specifically asks Dumbledore this question and is assured if nobody claims any of the three, he will be the last owner of the Hallows" - Not true. Harry asked Dumbledore what would happen to the elder wand if he died a natural death. All he said about the resurrection stone was that he dropped it and didn't know where. They didn't talk about who owned it.
"Dropping it in the woods did not mean it wasn't his any longer" - True. But, willingly giving it up to the woods is a different matter. He did not intend to pick it up again. Whether or not that matters to the stone, who knows?
"Dumbledore never discussed the hallows with Harry and ..." - Dumbledore was never completely forthright with Harry, was he? The only time he was completely honest was during that last conversation in King's Cross. But Dumbledore did let something slip after Voldemort returned: the briefest glimpse of what Harry called "triumph", after Harry told him that Voldemort used Harry's blood to return. The "little problem" that Voldemort overcame, was the danger of touching Harry's skin. That's what Harry asked Dumbledore about. They didn't, at that time, talk about any other affects of using Harry's blood.
There's a lot of guesswork as to what the hallows did when they were united. I'm just calling it what it is - guesswork, speculation, circumstantial evidence, reading between the lines. If the hallows did make Harry "master of death" it was in addition to the protection of his mothers blood.
Deathly Hallows, Page 708:
"But if Voldemort used the Killing Curse," Harry started again, "and nobody died for me this time - how can I be alive?"
"I think you know," said Dumbledore. "Think back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his cruelty."
Harry thought...
"He took my blood,"
"Precisely!" said Dumbledore. "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 live while he lives!"
"This is expressed clearly in the last book; not so much in the movies." - actually, you've got that backwards. The movies made no mention of Harry's blood tethering him to life and made it look like the hallows were everything. The book makes it very clear how, one-by-one, the hallows gave Harry what he needed to greet death. It never says that they gave him the power to come back to life. It implied that the hallows might make one immortal. But the phrase used was "master of death". Immortality was merely how some of the characters interpreted "master of death". And apparently that's how the movie producers interpreted "master of death" as well. The concept of defeating or mastering death was also briefly discussed when Harry saw his parents headstone: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death". But, like Hermione said, that doesn't mean avoiding death, does it?
Good points, Julia, but I have to disagree with some of your assumptions. Also, I think you're misunderstanding me a bit.I actually just finished reading the entire series again and I tried to pay great attention to how the whole "blood vs. hallows" thing worked out. The books were pretty adamant that there was no way Harry was living without those Hallows. You seem to dismiss them a bit, citing Harry's blood as the only reason he could have survived, which is clear was a factor. But then, why would there be so much emphasis on these hallows to the point of naming the entire book after them if they weren't critically important?
You ask when he won the wand? Here's the timeline: Draco disarmed Dumbledore that night at the Astronomy tower. The Elder wand then gave its allegiance to Draco. The Elder wand was buried with Dumbledore until Voldemort took it from the tomb-still allied with Draco.
When Dobby came to rescue them at Malfoy manor, Harry disarmed Draco, earning Draco's wand's allegiance. Because he was master of Draco's wand, the Elder wand was now also Harry's. That's why Voldemort never could get it to work well (like Harry mentions other wands not being as powerful for him after he loses his). That's why it would not be able to be used to kill him-it was his own wand.
No, Dumbledore never seemed to talk to Harry about anything, you're right about that. Frustrating, to say the least. But King's Cross was wonderful for tying everything together and answering a few things. Not to mention giving Harry peace of mind about all those he had lost.
Being Master of the Hallows is not the same as being Master of Death. I don't see that I made that a clear distinction, so I apologize. Harry recognized that distinction, though, and continued his search for horcruxes instead of the hallows. When he actually went to greet death, he was no longer frightened by it and that is the maturity and understanding that comes with experience and age.
But having that wand's allegiance was significant because the horcrux in Harry could be destroyed by it because the wand would not recognize that part of him as the person it was allied with. Perhaps at that point, Lily's blood comes into play. I didn't feel like that was the primary reason, honestly, but as you point out, a significant one. I felt like that was why he didn't feel any pain when Voldemort did the Crucio spell on his body after he "came back." The wand was protecting him as well as the blood.
I will stand by what I said earlier, the book is very clear that the hallows are important for Harry's survival in the forest. The wand would kill the horcrux, the cloak would hide him so he could have the advantage in battle, and the stone would give him the comfort of his family. All these combined gave Harry the ability to greet death. I would say that is one type of mastering--mastering death in the mind through acceptance.
I was under the impression that the most vital part of having the hallows be that the allegiance of the wand is Harry's. Voldemort even kills Snape, assuming that Snape is the owner because he killed Dumbledore-sensing there is an problem with the wand's performance. There is a whole scene with Ollivander at Shell Cottage about wands choosing wizards and specifically, how the wand that was Draco's is now Harry's. It's really striking how many clues point to the wand being allied with Harry and how important that seems to be.
Just my own opinion and interpretation, though. :)
Ahhh, good spotting. But I bet there's got to be a reason that happened.
On the original question: "Well, you've got to-- if his body had been irreperably destroyed, he has to die to get rid of that piece of soul. His body has got to be irreperably damaged. So a lot of people asked, and I think I've answered this since... but a lot of people immediately said, having finished "Hallows", "(gasps) But then, that means, in Chamber of Secrets when he was pierced by the basilisk..." But no, no, no, no. He didn't die! He didn't die! That was stated right at the beginning with the Horcrux. The receptacle has got to be destroyed. His body wasn't destroyed. He got a bit poisoned, and then he got the antidote immediately. So, you know, that's not gonna drive out this piece of soul." - J.K. Rowling http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2...Clearly, had Fawkes not saved Harry with its tears, the horcrux would have been destroyed. It is unclear whether Nagini had any magical protection that would have prevented her death from ordinary matters. The quote seems to indicate that beheading is sufficient and the use of a sword impregnated with basilisk venom was incidental. Personally, I was expecting the snake to be destroyed by sectumsempra, as the wounds it produces are not curable by normal means (although Snape did have a way to repair them).
As to the significance of the Deathly hallows, I think Julia has it mostly right. Harry was able to come back because Riddle used his blood and became a tether to life for Harry. The Deathly Hallows are mostly a red herring. People believe in them as a way to avoid death, but, in the end, Harry rejects them and understands that “the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that be must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying.” Harry even gives up each of the hallows prior to facing death. First, he chooses to pursue horcruxes instead of the elder wand. Then he abandons the resurrection stone in the forest. Finally he removes the invisibility cloak and submits himself to death. He doesn't make use of any of the hallows. This is what makes him master of death: that he sees through the facade. Death is nothing more than a change. Having seen his parents, Lupin, and Sirius, Harry knows that there is a life to come and can join the Apostle Paul in asking, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”
In the interview I linked to above, Rowling goes on to say "It's about the end, and how Harry survived right to the end. He doesn't fight and Voldemort uses the Killing Curse on him. It was important for me to say on the website, I never saw this, as in the finale, the deneouement, the moment when Harry faces Voldemort prepared to die and doesn't die-- that isn't like a scientific equation. Harry-- it's not guaranteed, there has to be space, to make Harry truly heroic, for free will. It has to be his choice. The whole thing's his choice. He chooses to sacrifice himself just as Lily chose to sacrifice herself. He chooses to pull himself back to life, and that's his own will and courage. So ultimately, those things, all of them were more important than the magic."
And the elder wand was effective against Harry. Dumbledore told him that he could board a train and go on. Had Harry chosen to die, the curse would have killed him. The reason the subsequent crucio didn’t hurt is the same reason none of Voldemort’s later spells would stick: Harry’s sacrifice recreated the same magic that protected him as a baby.
Samantha The Escapist wrote: "Mary ~ I cry over a boyband wrote: "What do you mean exactly?"That if they used the old fangs to destroy hufflepuff's cup (and the diary, and the diadem and probably others), why didn't the basil..."
I think he would have needed to die to complete the destruction
I have also wondered why Harry, as a horcrux, was not destroyed when the basilisk bit him.So, I think what is being said is that, in spite of basilisk venom being able to destroy horcruxes, the horcrux in Harry was quite immune from the venom.
And, that this immunity stems from the idea that Harry becoming a horcrux was circumstantial and unintentional?
Wm. Scott wrote: "I have also wondered why Harry, as a horcrux, was not destroyed when the basilisk bit him.So, I think what is being said is that, in spite of basilisk venom being able to destroy horcruxes, the h..."
No. To destroy a horcrux, you have to destroy its container beyond magical repair. The objects were beyond magical repair as soon as they were cracked with an object containing basilisk venom. Harry was not beyond magical repair until he was dead. The basilisk venom didn't kill him because Faux intervened. If Harry had died that day, the horcrux would have died as well.
C.C. wrote: "On the original question: "Well, you've got to-- if his body had been irreperably destroyed, he has to die to get rid of that piece of soul. His body has got to be irreperably damaged. So a lot of ..."You explained this much better than I did. Thank you.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I mean, I guess it could just be that he was healed so quickly but it sure didn't take long to destroy the others with the fang...