Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
Series Questions
Ok, I'm gonna give it a shot, but it's been a while since I actually read them, so I might leave out a thing or two.1. The important part is that Lily dies for Harry. She put herself in between him and Voldemort and her love is more powerful than any magic(which is the entire point of the series). So when Voldemort goes to kill Harry, the protection of Lily's love remains because he has her blood.
That's why Harry was sent to live with the Dursley's, because Petunia had Lily's blood and would protect Harry.
So when voldemort touches Harry in the first book, that protection is still going strong - because he has his mother's blood. But in book 4, wormtail takes some of Harry's blood to bring back voldemort, which means that voldemort now has some of that same blood in him and that protection isn't really as effective.
The curse rebounding off Harry has to do with the horcruxes and the wands.
2. The snake was the 6th horcrux. Harry was an unintentional 7th. And Dumbledore was the only one who figured that out until the end.
Harry doesn't die because he was willing to. His love(again, the main point) was stronger than the magic that voldemort had. So that instead of killing harry, he only killed the part of his soul that he unintentionally put into harry. Because remember, harry had a choice of whether or not to die and get on the train and go 'on' or to go back and keep fighting. He had that choice because he was unselfish and sacrificed himself for others. Kind of a loophole with the horcrux being the scapegoat of what actually had to die from the curse.
The protection of harry's love for others lingers after the fact, again, when you see voldemort's magic not quite so effective on everyone when he tries to keep them quiet.
3. Harry saw the thestrals because he saw Cedric die.
Although, I'm not sure why he didn't see them before that, because technically he saw his mother die, too, he just didn't remember it....
4. I forget the details of this, honestly. I think, though, it was because, yes they were equally matched in power, but also, they were...related sort of. They were the only two wands with that core from the same phoenix. And it had to do with the fact that Harry was a horcrux - part of voldemort himself. I'm a little fuzzy on that part...
But at the end, when Harry's wand protects him independently when he's running away, it was because, for one thing, voldemort wasn't the master of Lucius Malfoy's wand and Harry was the master of his own. And then at the end, when voldemort dies, He was essentially trying to use Harry's wand against him, since Draco disarmed Dumbledore and Harry disarmed Draco - the master of Dumbeldore's wand(the elder wand) was Harry. And the wand wouldn't work right against it's master.
5. Yes, he did explain it, and like you, I forget specifically why. But I'm pretty sure it had to do with the same core of the wands and the fact that Harry was a horcrux. The wands were forced against each other and essentially against their own masters in a way.
The ghosts coming out of it, wasn't really them. It was....I forget the spell they said, but it was the last spells that voldemort did with the wand, in reverse - the last people he killed. Which is why the first person out of the wand was that gardener(?) guy from the beginning of book 4.But it wasn't actually them. Like they weren't trapped in there. It was more like the paintings that were on the walls - more of just a reflection of who they were.
Also it had to do with what Voldemort feared - death.
The spirits that were with Harry at the end, were actually them. They weren't the same as the ones from book 4 or ghosts. Harry used the resurrection stone that Dumbledore left him in the snitch and actually brought them back for a few minutes while he walked to his death.
6. The arch was (I forget specifically) but it was like the doorway into the afterlife or whatever.
Horcruxes are a part of a person that they choose to put into something to become immortal - voldemort did 7 for extra insurance because he was terrified of death. So that in the event that his body was killed, he would be able to come back the way he did. He didn't actually die when he tried to kill harry, he was just sort of stuck in Limbo.
Ghosts are just not ready to move on - unfinished business. They're already dead. But they're wholly there. They just choose to have a sort of half life forever - choosing to remain on earth even though they're dead rather than moving on to the afterlife. Nearly headless nick was actually there as a ghost, not just part of himself and not just an imitation of himself(like with the paintings), it was actually him.
lol, I always have to reread books like this to get everything. And even now I've forgotten alot of it...darn it....lol I think I may have to read them again soon.
yeah, the movies really wouldn't be helpful for stuff like this b/c they don't really explain anything.
haha oh, yeah. I think I was picturing the movie. Well, same concept anyway.
One more I just thought ofWhere exactly is Hogsmeade? Is it on school grounds? Because a passage from the school gets the the sweet shop, yet, it's a whole flourishing touwn... isn't it?
Hogsmeade is a village close to Hogwarts. The passage is an underground tunnel that lets out in the basement of Honeydukes, a candy store in the village.
Okay this is really out of order but yeah.So Harry's parents died and their love provided Harry protection, hence proving Dumbledore's theory that love is the greatest magic of all. Harry was not killed in book 7 because Harry was the true master of the elder wand and it refused to bring harm to its master. The first time he was killed (in the forest) didn't really kill him, it killed the hocrux inside him.Anyone can block avada kedrava, they either cast a spell against the avada kedrava, or move so the spell misses them.
3. It is because he was too young to remember actually seeing his mom die. All he can remember from that night is the voices of his parents and Voldemort, so it doesn't count. For Cedric, he actually saw his death, remembered, and even had nightmares about it.
Kristen wrote: "Ok, I'm gonna give it a shot, but it's been a while since I actually read them, so I might leave out a thing or two.1. The important part is that Lily dies for Harry. She put herself in between h..."
Very well explained!!! Accurate and detailed...Well done!
Mercedes wrote: "3. It is because he was too young to remember actually seeing his mom die. All he can remember from that night is the voices of his parents and Voldemort, so it doesn't count. For Cedric, he actual..."Yeah, but I think the only requirement was for the person to have actually seen death, not necessarily remember it. Harry did see his mom die. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I think it might be a hole in the plot...
Erie wrote: "Kristen wrote: "Ok, I'm gonna give it a shot, but it's been a while since I actually read them, so I might leave out a thing or two.1. The important part is that Lily dies for Harry. She put hers..."
Thanks :)
Skye wrote: "Okay this is really out of order but yeah.So Harry's parents died and their love provided Harry protection, hence proving Dumbledore's theory that love is the greatest magic of all. Harry was not k..."Yeah it is out of order, sorry, just my train of thought.
Elder Wand? What happened?
I thought Dumbledore owned it, but and then Voldermort stole it, then...
Jeesh, I probably should just re-read Book Seven.
All the exposition that I remember about any wand was that Harry's got broken, and Voldermort borrowed L. Malfoy's wand but it got broken. I remember the Elder Wand could only be transferred via death of previous owner, but didn't get the wand situation in general. :/
And Kristen, you're amazing. And you said you forgot a lot! Thanks :)
Yes, the elder wand was Dumbledore's and Voldemort did steal it from him, but he wasn't the true master of the wand. The ownership of the wand doesn't transfer by death, but by disarming the previous master. That was the mistake that Voldemort made.
At the end of book 6, when Draco is supposed to kill Dumbledore, he disarms him - making Draco the true master of the wand. And then after Harry, Hermione, and Ron are captured at the Malfoy house in book 7, Harry disarms Draco - making Harry the true master of the wand.
Voldemort thought that by simply taking the wand he would be the most powerful wizard in the world and would be able to kill Harry, but the wand wouldn't work right against Harry because Harry was the true master of it(in addition to his own broken wand).
Voldemort first thinks its enough to just steal it and then he realizes that it doesn't work right for him so he then thinks to be the true master, he has to kill the previous master - who he assumes is Snape because he killed Dumbledore. So that's why he killed Snape. But of course, he was wrong again.
And yeah, before he borrowed Lucius' wand, but again, that doesn't make him it's true master - he would have had to disarm him. So that's why it broke when he tried to use it on Harry.
lol, no prob. I really did forget alot. I like to know every little detail. I guess I just retained more than I thought...wish I could have been like that in school. Ha!
Kristen wrote: "I guess I just retained more than I thought...wish I could have been like that in school. Ha! "Me too!!! But I think that if I was going to Hogwarts I would be an excellent student...
WOW. That explains a lot. I guess it's easier to remember something that you like, something more life-changing like HP than the exact date that, I don't know, DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa.
:P
Ha. Wasn't life changing for me, but good series. :)
On seeing his mother die this is what JK said."Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then cut it. He didn’t see it; he was too young to appreciate it."
Found here
That last sentence kind of threw me off. He didn't see it so why should it matter if he was too young to appreciate it? Unless you not only have to see Death (to see the thestrals) but understand it as well? -shrug-
Janie - sounds like you got a lot of answers already. But if you go to J.K. Rowling's FAQ's (on her website) many of your questions are answered there.
Erie wrote: "Kristen wrote: "I guess I just retained more than I thought...wish I could have been like that in school. Ha! "Me too!!! But I think that if I was going to Hogwarts I would be an excellent student..."
LOL, I know, right?!
Janie wrote: "WOW. That explains a lot.
I guess it's easier to remember something that you like, something more life-changing like HP than the exact date that, I don't know, DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa.
..."
Haha, dates were the worst for me. I was like, who cares as long as I know it happened?!
Sandy wrote: "On seeing his mother die this is what JK said.
"Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then cut it. He d..."
Mmmm...sound's kind of like a way to justify her error if you ask me. I'd much rather someone say, oops I screwed that part up. But maybe that's just me...
Although, maybe I was just picturing the movies again - darn it. If he didn't actually see it, I could understand why he wouldn't see the thestrals till later.
But I'm confused. Did he actually not see it or just supposedly not understand what he was seeing?
Because kids are perceptive. Even if he didn't actually understand what was happening, he would understand the concept of it being a bad situation and he would still actually have 'seen death', which is what I always thought was the requirement for the thestrals.
But then again, maybe I'm just picturing the movies where Harry literally sees everything.
This makes me so nostalgic for 2007.Do you all remember the first time you finished Book seven? I was in my apartment in Greece, sobbing my eyes out. The second time was two weeks later, at JFK airport at 5am, sobbing again.
The thanksgiving before book six came out, my entire extended family had a three-hour Harry Potter discussion.
Harry Potter books ruled my childhood.
in regards to the question about seeing thestrals, there are two answers:1. Baby Harry didn't actually see it. could have been asleep, eyes close at the wrong moment, so on and so forth. Remember, just because it happened in the movie doesn't mean that's how it happened in the book.
2. He didn't have the mental capacity to understand death. I think that's a legitimate reason.
Not to argue, but I don't know that I can agree with that. Doesn't Harry have flash backs, where he sees the green light and hears his mom screaming?
Of course, maybe I'm just mixing things up and it was really just voldemort's memories since they were in each others heads and all. I really don't remember. I suppose it is explainable in some way like that...
But as far as your second point, personally, that just sounds like stretching it to make everything fit nice and neat. I have nieces and nephews and, granted every kid is different, but before she was 2, my niece definitely understood the concept of things like dying. Maybe she was just advanced, Idk, but saying Harry didn't understand what was going on so that's why, seems very convenient.
To me anyway, but it's her series I guess, so whatever. Just doesn't line up to me.
I don't know about the screaming offhand, that may be from Voldemort's memories and/or Harry's subconscious? And re: mental capacities of a child
Of course it sounds convenient, Rowling is writing to suit her purposes! :P
But maybe his infant psyche blocked it? But I still think that he didn't understand the idea of death. You can tell a 1 year old what it means to be dead, but they may not understand it fully or at all. I'm not sure of the mental capacity of average children (I do know that generally speaking, memories start at about three or four). It's plausible. At the very least, it's J.K. covering her ass, and she wrote the books, so I tend not to question things like that.
Ah, but if it's in his subconscious, he must have seen/heard it and been remembering.If the requirement was for someone to see and understand death, she should have gotten that idea across rather than simply saying someone had to see death - which is all I remember it being. Because, people see alot of things they don't understand and it affects them anyway.
Kind of like....pardon me while I think of a stupid example here....kind of like when I got my Scat Mat to keep my dogs off the couch. They don't have the mental capacity to understand the concept of electricity shocking them when they put pressure on the little sensors and 2 minutes later, they've forgotten it ever happened. But from the moment they feel that little shock(and run and fly over the arm of the couch in my dogs case, LOL), they know - 'couch bad!' and forever after that they think 'couch bad!' even if they don't really remember why. Or at least in most dogs cases anyway. My dogs were just that dumb to test it again and again....lol
But, I just like to nit-pick things - if you can't tell from the above posts, lol
I still think it's just a convenient way around something she missed.
I heard another possible hole in the story a little bit ago. The invisibility cloak. Being that it's the cloak from the deathly hallows, it's supposed to be unaffected by all magic and completely fool proof. But then in book 4, Mad-Eye can see through it with his magic eye.
That one made me go, 'huh!'
lol, ok I'm done now.
In all honesty, they're probably mess ups. Good catch on the invisibility cloak, didn't see (pun intended) that. Does someone in the cloak show up on the Marauder's map?
@Caitlin: Well, I can't really take credit for the invisibility cloak error. I ripped that from someone else, lolYeah, I think the person wearing the cloak would show up on the map, because they're still there, people just can't see them and/or use spells to find them.
They'd still be able to know they were there. Like if they bumped into them or heard them or smelled them(eww,lol) or whatever. And if I'm remembering right, they'd be able to see their feet if the person were tall enough for the cloak not to cover them all the way.
So, their presence is still all there, they're just hidden from sight. The map doesn't have to 'see' anyone, it just knows they're there.
But yeah, I'm guessing if we look hard enough we'll find a few errors in any book. Authors and Editors are human too.
@Tanae: I get what you're saying, I just still think that's stretching it. If that was really what the requirement was for the thestrals, from the beginning, she could have gotten that idea across. She was pretty elaborate with plenty of other ideas throughout the series.
But still, she's the author, so I guess where HP is concerned, her word is law. Even if it is just to cover a mistake, lol
Kristen wrote: "Doesn't Harry have flash backs, where he sees the green light and hears his mom screaming?"I think that the green light that Harry sees is from the Avada Kedavra that Voldemort throwed at him when he tried to kill him. As far as I remember it Harry only hears his mom screaming. Which means that he never actually saw her dying.
I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but in Deathly Hallows, after he goes to Godric's Hollow, Harry goes into Voldemorts head and we get to see the night Harry's parents died, from Voldemort's point of view. That's where you can see exactly how it went.
@Erie: The light could be from either the curse aimed at him or his mom. The fact that he remembers the screaming only means that he heard what was going on. It doesn't negate the fact that he might have also seen it. He just doesn't remember actually seeing it. It's really too vague to know what happened specifically.
Although the fact that he remembers screaming, means that he couldn't have been asleep. So, that's something I guess.
@Katherine: I meant before the last book. In book 3 with the dementors, Harry has those memories when he passes out from the dementors feeding off his worst fears/memories. Which was before Voldemort came back and before they had that psychic link or whatever.
Sounds like I'll have to reread all the books to catch the mistakes and inconsistencies. Oh well.
Here's another:When did Ron start to love Hermione and vice-versa? They end up living happily ever after... but what's the deal? It seems so, sudden, I suppose, only in Book 7 they seem to be all "falling asleep holding hands" and such. And why do you think Hermione never fell for Harry? They seem more suited. I mean,the relationship is fine, but when did it start?
Well, I think unless you ask the author, everything you hear on this is going to be pure speculation. Some people see chemistry when others don't.For me, I think I had my first clue that they'd wind up together at the end of the second one when Hermione is unpetrified. There's just this awkwardness between her and Ron that you don't see between her and Harry. Of course, that's just with the movie, I can't remember if I notice it in the book as well. I only started reading them a few years ago, so I'd read a book then watch the movie then the next book, etc. So I'm a little fuzzy on that.
Really, I think it just sort of grew without anyone really noticing for the first 4 or 5 years. Most of the time in a group of friends consisting of girls and guys, you'll get some romantic feelings between some of them. I think I always assumed there would be something going on between her and Ron or Harry, I just didn't know which one right away. But as they get older, Ron and Hermione just...get to each other more. Like, there's sort of a passion between them that isn't there with Harry.
I think they probably could also closely relate to loving Harry but also feeling like they were in his shadow alot of the time.
I think I thought the same thing when I realized for sure that Ron and Hermione were gonna end up together, but then if you go back and read/watch the series knowing that, it almost seems obvious. At least to me it does.
I honestly thought it was more shocking that Harry developed feelings for Ginny.
Janie wrote: "Here's another:When did Ron start to love Hermione and vice-versa? They end up living happily ever after... but what's the deal? It seems so, sudden, I suppose, only in Book 7 they seem to be a..."
It's a little out of the blue, I suppose.
Harry never showed an interest in Hermione, so if Herminone did ever have feelings for Harry, I think she knew he wasn't interested and kept them hidden.
Besides, we don't ever see their relationship outside of Harry, merely because we're viewing things through Harry's eyes, so we don't know if Ron and Hermione hang out together without Harry.
I want to say Ron and Herminone's developing relationship shows in at least book six, maybe five? I can't be sure though.
Caitlin wrote: "Janie wrote: "Here's another:When did Ron start to love Hermione and vice-versa? They end up living happily ever after... but what's the deal? It seems so, sudden, I suppose, only in Book 7 the..."
I'd say book 4 when Ron was jealous of Hermione going to the Yule Ball with Viktor Krum.
Caitlin wrote: "Janie wrote: "Here's another:When did Ron start to love Hermione and vice-versa? They end up living happily ever after... but what's the deal? It seems so, sudden, I suppose, only in Book 7 the..."
Good point. We don't really know for sure who felt what aside from Harry's POV.
Erie wrote: "Kristen wrote: "Ok, I'm gonna give it a shot, but it's been a while since I actually read them, so I might leave out a thing or two.1. The important part is that Lily dies for Harry. She put hers..."
Yeah...
Well done Kristen... I never thought of these questions before but now that I read this discussion, it made me wonder too... But you provided us with perfect answers... Thanks!
Because Voldemort was weak back then and came to grow stronger
Mary Christabelle wrote: "Erie wrote: "Kristen wrote: "Ok, I'm gonna give it a shot, but it's been a while since I actually read them, so I might leave out a thing or two.1. The important part is that Lily dies for Harry...."
Glad I could help :)
Kim wrote: "Caitlin wrote: "Janie wrote: "Here's another:When did Ron start to love Hermione and vice-versa? They end up living happily ever after... but what's the deal? It seems so, sudden, I suppose, on..."
Oh DUH! I feel so stupid now. I am useless.
Jealous? Well, sure, but I thought it was just that Ron was bitter becaues of the fact that he was forced to wear a hidious dress, and Krum was against Harry in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. He was pretty nasty to her when she showed up with Krum. Plus I was also surprised when Ron didn't ask her in the first place either. He didn't really show any affection toward anyone else either besides Fleur or something and she was "unattainable" and he knew it.
I suppose he was jealous, but I just couldn't see logical and sensible Hermoine falling for Ron. They were always fighting about things.
Q 2.= Harry was a Horcrux. Nagini (the snake) was a Horcrux as well. It's pretty complicated, so you may want to read the book again. :/
Wait, I think there are seven Horcruxes and then there's Harry TOO. I'm right, right?
Wait..... no, there are only six Horcruxes and THEN the unknowingly created one, Harry. I've just confused myself. :/(to self) so there's the locket and the cup and the snake and Harry and...
Q 6a.= The arch is very mysterious. Sirius falls through it and is lost. But nobody knows what it is, though Harry thought he could hear voices behind its curtain.
Janie wrote: "Jealous? Well, sure, but I thought it was just that Ron was bitter becaues of the fact that he was forced to wear a hidious dress, and Krum was against Harry in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. He was ..."Ron was so awful to Hermione when she showed up with Krum because he was jealous. He just probably didn't recognize it. But he went from hero-worshiping Krum to almost hating him, because of Hermione.
I think he always sort of saw her as his safety option. He thought she'd always be there and didn't recognize that he felt more for her than friendship until he saw her with someone else.
And then after that I think he just felt weird about it.
But that's just my observation....
Sariah wrote: "Wait..... no, there are only six Horcruxes and THEN the unknowingly created one, Harry. I've just confused myself. :/(to self) so there's the locket and the cup and the snake and Harry and..."
LOL, yes there were 7 all together, but Harry was an accidental one. I think he intended to make 7 anyway, he just didn't mean it to be Harry. Because remember in Slughorn's memory, he asks if it's possible to do it 7 times.
Locket, Cup, Diary, Crown, Ring, Snake, Harry
When did Hermione start to fall for Ron do you think?
That's kind of hard to answer. I think all real love has to first start with friendship. It's the basis for romantic love. At least the kind that will last.They all became friends in the first one, so I'd say it really started there. But they were too young for those types of feelings yet. I think somewhere in the first two books they really love each other, it's just in a friend way. She loves Harry too, and at that point, it was probably basically the same as with Ron.
I don't know if anyone would be able to pin point the exact time when Hermione's love changed from friendship to romantic love. I think it was a gradual thing that she didn't realize, either, until around the fourth one with the dance. Ron waits to ask her and I think she was surprised that it bothered her that he thought of her as his safety option for when Fleur said no.
And then especially when Ron starts dating Lavender, she's realized that she feels that way about him.
But I don't know specifically when it started. I do think, like I said in post 33, there were little hints that it might go that way though. There was just always a sort of tension between them that wasn't there with her and Harry. They got to each other more. And they could relate more about being friends with Harry - loving him as a friend, but also always feeling a little less important.
Ok, thank you Kristen!!
I've always wondered why Harry couldn't see the thestrals until after Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Shouldn't he have been able to, since he watched his parents be killed by Voldemort when he was a baby?
Either it's a plot hole, or he didn't remember that and that was enough although he could here his mother screaming when the dementors came around.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
1. So Harry is protected from Voldermort because his parents died for him. Book One, when the Professor w/Voldermort made contact with Harry, he disintegrated. But when Voldermort comes back (Book Four), he makes a big deal about how he can make contact and kill Harry then. Then in Book Seven, a curse rebounds off Harry again which makes me question…
2. The Horcruxes. So in the Book Seven, we learn that Harry is a seventh Horcrux? Or is it the snake? And referring back to question one, why doesn’t Harry die? Because he was willing to die for his friends? But that would only protect the “friends” yes? And he would die? Like his parents? And Dumbledore’s spirit or something said that he was still protected and because Voldermort had Harry’s blood form Book Four, then he was selfish and brought his own demise. What? So Harry was still protected? And Voldermort could “touch” him but not kill him?
3. If his parents died for him, how come he didn't see the... horse-things that only people who've had seen death could see from Year One like Luna? If you were convinced that you saw death and you didn't, would one see them? Or vice versa?
4. What was the deal with the “same core” wands? It was implying that because of the same phoenix’s tail-feather, they were…equally matched? So other wizards’ or witches’ wands would be able to block the adava kedavera or whatever spell like Harry’s wand could?
5. Why did the spirits come out of the wand? Were they trapped in Voldermort’s wand indefinatly until same-core wands made contact (magically) which was really rare? . And the spirits that “walked” with Harry on his way to the Voldermort showdown. Where did they come from? (Dumbledore probably explained this, but I forgot)
6. What was the arch or whatever that Sirious Black disappeared to in the Department of Mysteries when he died? Oh, and what is the difference between Horcruxes and the ghosts (Nearly Headless-Nick said something about leaving part of them behind to become a ghost?)
So yes, maybe the answer was obvious and I was reading too fast. I normally read very quickly and remember pretty well, but this was a complicated series with all the exposition in Book Seven, and it doesn’t seem to add up to me… I don't know. Please explain! It probably didn't help that I went and watched all the movies from the library as well... :P