Doesn't it bother you that Harry came back from dead?

[An-chan]

He DID die, because otherwise the whole thing where they were collecting the Deathly Hallows was completely moot. He had all three so that he would come back from the dead when he died, as he knew he would have to, because it's not like killing spells know how to separate between the actual spirit or whatever in the body and the piece of another one added to it. Nagini died entirely, not just the horcrux part of her. Therefore, Harry died, too, but he came back because he had the tools to cheat Death himself.

That said, yes, I was disappointed. I was expecting a grand finale where the Wizarding World realizes that they don't need prophecies, that they don't need one single boy to do everything for them, but that each and every person has the makings of a hero in them. I became increasingly annoyed with the series after the prophecy was introduced, because it felt like every adult in the series had thrown their hands up and gone "oh well, we can't do anything then I guess!" I think it would have been a much stronger message of hope like that. And, granted, thanks to Neville, we do get at least some of that message... And then Harry pops back and makes it all a moot point. It pissed me off, frankly.

But then again I personally hated the epilogue because it skimmed right over the difficult rebuilding process and jumped into showing us how the imaginative, adventurous, interesting characters we'd grown to love had become very dull and ordinary and how nothing in the world had really changed... It's like they learned nothing from all that took place! But then again maybe I'm the only one who thinks the separation of wizards and muggles is a little bit disturbing, reminiscent of racial segregation or something like that. The wizarding world keeps some key abilities to themselves (curing cancer, anyone?) in order to stay hidden, and seems to think of muggles as inferior overall... Aren't they just going to have another Tom Riddle one day if they keep to that? Or that's what I thought, anyway.

[Amaranth]

An-chan wrote: "He DID die, because otherwise the whole thing where they were collecting the Deathly Hallows was completely moot. He had all three so that he would come back from the dead when he died, as he knew ..."

Your points were really interesting. I do agree, Harry Potter seemed to go to the happily ever after route, but then again it does follow the usual good vs evil storyline and a truimphant hero at the end is one of the most repeated ends. I think Harry's death would have been an interesting end with someone else finishing Voldemort (Neville could have done it as he was th other Boy Who Lived possibility).

I also think the epilogue didn't make a good ending. Sure, it gave a feeling of coming back full circle, and probably satisfied a lot of fans who wanted to see how the main characters ended up, but I think it just ruined the ending. It tied up the ends too cleanly; like you said, it skips over the reconstruction that should have come after the war (Kinda like the Reconstruction after the American Civil War -- a people torn by distrust and propaganda and prejudice still rampant). However describing the post war reconstruction would take a lot more than a few chapters and I think Rowling wanted to fnally end the series. Personally, I thought it should have ended with the last chapter and cut off the epilogue entirely -- it had a much better ending than the epilogue, ending the series yet still open to the different possibilities of what happens next.

Even with different circumstances, history often repeats itself, so anoter Voldemort is possible. But you do have valid arguments. With all the conflict over or resulting from the relationship between the Muggles and wizards, some change in society would be nice. You should try reading some fanfiction. A lot of authors have really interesting ideas as to how the aftermath could have happened.

[C.C.]

Harry died, and then he came back to life. This was the only end possible for the story Rowling wanted to tell, because she made Harry a Christ-figure. In anticipation of the release of this book, I read tons of articles and theories about how it would end. One of the things that came up was an interview where Rowling was asked about her religious views. She declined to say much about on the grounds that it would give too much away or something to that effect. Since Rowling is a member of the Scottish branch of the Anglican church, we can safely deduce that her religious views pertain mainly to Jesus. Harry's actions follow the general outline of Jesus's death, where he voluntarily leaves his followers to go meet death, is killed surrounded by foes and mockers, later comes back to life, and saves everyone by his sacrifice.
Now this is not to say that Harry is Jesus in the books. A Christ-figure is not necessarily Christ-like at all times, but the christ figure does sacrifice him (or her) self to save others. ANother example would be Aslan from Narnia.
So I don't think she chickened out on killing Harry. I think she always intended for him to die and come back. Remember the gleam of triumph in Dumbledore's eye at the end of GoF? By remaking himself with Harry's blood, Tom Riddle made himself a Horcrux-like object for Harry. Thus when Harry and the Riddle horcrux in him died, the bit of Harry in Riddle was able to revive Harry, just as Riddle revived himself by means of his horcruxes.

[Rashika (is tired)]

Amaranth wrote: "An-chan wrote: "He DID die, because otherwise the whole thing where they were collecting the Deathly Hallows was completely moot. He had all three so that he would come back from the dead when he d..."

Yeah exactly, the ending was too "picture perfect". i think if she left it as it was it would have been better, but i guess most fans needed that epilogue.

[Tim]

I don't get at all that having all three Hallows gave Harry the power to come back from the dead. Each individual Hallow had its own special powers, but the whole "Master of Death" thing was really just a hyperbolic way of saying you had some really powerful stuff.

And they weren't collecting the Deathly Hallows. Harry consciously chose to prioritize Horcuxes over Hallows. He thought he might be the master of the wand, but wasn't sure. And he didn't know where the ring was or seek it out. It was only when he was thinking about sacrificing himself that he figured out where the ring was. And he left the ring behind before Voldemort zapped him.

So I don't think the Deathly Hallows had anything to do with Harry's dying and coming back.

[Jeni]

The Hallows don't let you come back after death, they are insurance you won't die.

[Jess]

All the evidence in the book suggests a point at which death will be 'conquered' they mention that several times and having the Hallows is said to make you death's 'master' If you simply don't have the option to die, rather than dying and choosing whether to come back I wouldn't consider it conquering death, you never really faced it. And I wouldn't call it mastering death, because you weren't in charge of your fate. Also as An-Chan mentioned, a Horcrux has to be destroyed to kill the piece of Voldemort's soul within it. Just as Nagini died along with her piece of Voldemort's soul, Harry died with the piece inside him. Only Harry was able to come back due to his mastery of death, where as the piece of Voldemort could not.

I really don't think there is evidence in the book to suggest he came back due to some sort of sacrificial magic rather than the Hallows, or that Harry is simply unconscious rather than dead. If you like one of those ideas better that's fine though. It is a book after all, some interpretation is up to the reader.

[Audrey]

i never thought that harry completely died. and remember with magic usually anything is possible. :) (i know i sound really cheesey)

[Erin]

Hi didn't fie so he couldn't come back from the dead. Voldemort killed the HORCRUX in him so Harry was still alive. JKR didn't chicken out - she explained why Harry could speak parseltongue and was nearly in slithering.

[Jeni]

Actually, I just re-read the whole series and there is an explanation that the reason Voldemort had to kill Harry (and thus the horcrux in him) is that now that he has Harry's blood in him (from the GOF), he also has the sacrifice of Lily in him. Because of that, that love Lily had for Harry, the blood inside Voldemort, would kill that part of him in Harry. Sacrificial magic all the way.

Harry then chose to come back,like a near-death experience. I think the love of Lily transferred back to Harry from Voldemort and replaced the horcrux in him.

As for being a master of death--if you can control something, you are the master of it. None of the brothers came back and they all met death. They only help you control the circumstances around you to perhaps put off your own death, or decide when it should come.

[Jess]

Well none of the other brothers had all three Hallows. Only having all three makes you master of death.

Also I think that Voldemort having Harry's blood with Lily's powerful sacrificial magic in it was why Voldemort was able to kill the Horcrux with a curse, where as curses failed on all the other Horcruxes and much more powerful magic was needed to destroy them, like the Basalisk venom on the sword. Actually if I remember correctly, Voldemort having Harry's blood meant that he was *able* to kill Harry now, where as before he couldn't even touch him. So I don't see how Voldemort having Harry's blood was the thing that protected him?

So if Voldemort used Harry's blood so he would finally be able to kill him, (as I think he mentions but don't remember for sure) Then the Twinkle in Dumbledores's eye when he mentions that makes sence, because if Voldemort's hadn't done that, he wouldn't have been able to kill Harry, so Harry couldn't have sacrificed himself to Voldemort in order to destroy the Horcrux.

Does that make sense to anyone else am I just way off base?

[Jess]

By the way, I'm not really the best writer, so if any of that is worded in a confusing way, I can try to explain it better :)

[Jeni]

Harry did not have all three Hallows when he met Voldemort. He had the stone and the cloak and he dropped the stone. How can they have brought him back?

It was essential for Harry to die by Voldemort's hand so the horcrux would be severed from Harry. The sacrifice of Lily made it possible for him to choose to come back.

[Jess]

He dropped the stone, but it was still his because Dumbledore left it to him. He was master of the wand because he disarmed Malfoy who disarmed Dumbledore. Just because he didn't physically have them all there didn't mean they didn't all belong to him. You only had to own them all, not physically have them all on your person.

[Bob]

I don't think she "chickened out", he did die so she did in fact kill him off. He just came back is all and that isn't to unprecedented, as there are far more cases of people coming back from death than there are of say a boy becoming a wizard. It's actually quite brilliant in a marketing sense because people hear that he dies in the end of the book and so want to read it all the more only to find out that he dies and comes back, so that it fulfills their expectations and their need for a "happy ending".

[Sarah]

If Harry had chosen not to return then we wouldn't have known the ending! And I'd rather know the ending.

[Rose]

We're talking about a book about wizards, so people can't really be upset is something wasn't that realistic, although I thought it was. Harry couldn't really die with Voldermort still alive, it had to be him who killed him.

[Alice]

nope

[Melody]

Jess wrote: "Well none of the other brothers had all three Hallows. Only having all three makes you master of death.

Also I think that Voldemort having Harry's blood with Lily's powerful sacrificial magic in ..."

Going off of this discussion with Lily's sacrifice and Harry's blood, look at Harry's blood, and thus Lily's sacrifice, in Voldemort as an anchor for Harry to come back if he chose to. Dumbledore's triumphant look at the end of GoF was because of Voldemort choosing to come back to his physical form using Harry's blood. Without Voldemort doing that, I believe that Dumbledore was fully prepared to sacrifice Harry's life at the end, but it was Voldemort's arrogance at taking Harry's blood that ensured that Harry could come back.

Honestly, though, people, the point of whether Harry Potter truly dies at the end, or has a near-death experience, or goes to limbo, or hallucinates, or what have you is something that can be eternally debated without much result. The reason for this is because J.K. Rowling ensured that there would be evidence for every side. Why? Because death is unknowable. It's indescribable except by those who have actually done it, and sadly, they're really not at liberty to talk to us about it.

Actually, there is one unbreakable rule that Rowling employs throughout her books, and that rule is "Dead is dead." You can't bring someone back from the dead by any means, magic or otherwise. Sirius didn't come back from falling through the Veil. The Resurrection Stone couldn't bring people back from the dead but in fact disturbed souls from their resting place. Ghosts are mere spirits forced to roam only the places they dwelled in life. Inferi are nothing but animated corpses. She gives us all of these things, and yet... What was the scene at King's Cross? What even was King's Cross? Was Dumbledore even really there? Do those final quotes at the end of the chapter tell us everything, or do they only muddy things up further?

"Is any of this real, or is it all happening inside my head?" "Well, of course it's happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth does that mean it's not real?"

And then in an interview after Deathly Hallows came out, someone asked JKR a question about what happened to the last bit of Voldemort after he died, and she replied that he was forced to remain in the stunted, weakened form he was in at King's Cross forever. So, then, does that make King's Cross a place of death, a hell, or a limbo? Again, we just don't know.

So that's why I'm kind of laughing that some of you are stating that the ending was so clear cut, because honestly, it wasn't. Oh, sure good guys win and bad guys lose and it's all well and good, but seriously, what the hell was that King's Cross scene? There is no definitive answer, but there's nothing wrong about any of us trying to define it as logically as we can to make sense of it. Just don't be too surprised if this discussion ends and we still don't have a unanimous answer. The only thing we can really say for certain is that this is Harry's story. It's his narrative, and we can only experience this world through his eyes (save for the first two chapters of HBP and the first chapter of DH).

I can only be nothing short of impressed and overwhelmed with J.K. Rowling and this series. It takes someone special to weave a narrative like this, to successfully manage seven books that build off of each other in some of the most incredible ways and still be able to affect you and teach you so much. I thought DH was nothing short of ingenious and entirely mind-blowing, and this is coming from someone who really didn't care much for the Epilogue. But even I realized that she had to write something at the end to sort of be like, "Okay. This happened. I'm done, guys. I'm done." Otherwise, I think people would be clamoring for more books far, far more fanatically than they already are.

[Jess]

Can you explain the theory about Voldemort having Harry's blood being the thing that allowed him to survive? (whether you believe he died and came back or didn't die at all)

I've mentioned it a few times already, so I'm sorry to repeat myself. But nobody has explained it very well.

It says in the book, Voldemort was unable to harm Harry until he ressurects himself using Harry's blood. Once he had done that, he was able to harm him. So it seems to me, that Dumbledore wasn't pleased that Voldemort used Harry's blood because it would allow Harry to survive, but rather the opposite. He was pleased because Harry was unable to sacrifice himself until Voldemort was actually able to kill him. An ability he lacked until he had some of Harry's blood within him.

So I don't understand where the idea that it was Voldemort's use of Harrys's blood that saved him comes from. If that is the case however, I would love to understand it because I love these books and want to know and understand everything that happened. So if anyone can explain it better I'd appreciate it :)

[Melody]

Jess wrote: "Can you explain the theory about Voldemort having Harry's blood being the thing that allowed him to survive? (whether you believe he died and came back or didn't die at all)

I've mentioned it a fe..."

Oh, sure, I'd love to try to explain this. If I'm unclear on anything, just let me know.

Lily's sacrifice did prevent Voldemort from harming Harry and from even touching him, so that part you've certainly got down. I also agree with the point you made that Dumbledore was pleased about Voldemort taking Harry's blood to a degree. That Harry would then be able to be killed by Voldemort, thus allowing the opportunity for Voldemort's Horcrux in Harry to be destroyed. However, let's imagine for a second that Voldemort didn't take Harry's blood but chose another's instead. He wouldn't be able to kill him because of that, but Voldemort, though arrogant, was very intelligent. He would have figured it out, said "to hell with it," and probably would have gotten someone else to kill Harry. And it probably would have worked because Lily's sacrifice was for Harry alone against Voldemort's attacks. (In the end, Harry sacrifices himself to protect everyone at Hogwarts from Voldemort and his Death Eaters, and that's why they were all immune to their curses.) A Death Eater could have killed him, and Harry would have no way to escape that death. The Horcrux would have been destroyed, too, because a dead corpse cannot serve as a vessel for it the way, say, a locket or a cup can. That's why Voldemort grew so protective of Nagini. He knew that if she died, that part of his soul would die with her.

Therefore, I believe that Dumbeldore was pleased because Harry's blood in Voldemort gave Harry a link of reality to return to after he went to King's Cross.

It's a shame I don't have my book with me right now, so I can't find direct quotes for this, but I do remember reading in the King's Cross chapter something about this. When Harry and Dumbledore were having their heart-to-heart, they discussed about the unintended Horcrux and about Harry's blood. It was believed that, even if anyone did manage to destroy Voldemort and the known Horcruxes, he would still live on because a part of him was inside Harry, which neither Harry nor Voldemort knew about until the end. (Well, Harry found out. Voldemort didn't.) So, therefore, even if Voldemort was killed like before, a part of him would still linger on and potentially rise again, right?

As it stands with that idea, Voldemort had a sort of "way out" if he ever came close to death again, as long as Harry Potter survived. What, then, would keep Harry from staying dead, or rather from returning to reality at the end? The answer is Lily Potter's sacrifice that clings to his blood within Voldemort. I guess in this case, you can compare Harry's blood to a Horcrux, in the sense that Harry's blood, and thus his mother's sacrifice, are eternally a part of him just as a soul, even a piece of one, is. Voldemort struck Harry down, and we must remember that Harry did not fight back, believing that he had to die in order for the Horcrux to die. It's my belief that, because of Voldemort having Harry's blood, Lily's sacrifice still reacted in order to protect Harry. (Just like when he was an infant, Harry didn't defend himself, so Lily's sacrifice reacted and anchored him to reality as long as Voldemort still lived.) Harry felt that he couldn't fight back because of the Horcrux. His mother's sacrifice didn't die with him because Voldemort still had it living within him, the same way his Horcrux inside Harry would have still kept him alive if Harry or someone else had killing his returned body. Furthermore, it also goes back to the prophecy, that Harry would have power the Dark Lord knows not. We know that to be love, and while Harry displays different kinds of love as a defense throughout the series, it is Lily's sacrificial love that keeps coming back to save him, and it is something that Voldemort has never understood. He tried to explain it away in GoF as old magic he should have foreseen and protected himself against, and he demonstrates how much he does not understand it by taking it as his own during his resurrection. Voldemort's body didn't, and in fact couldn't, make new blood--like the blood he was born with--because it was Harry's blood that helped create his body. The body can only make more of what it already has, so Voldemort continued to share Harry's blood and Lily's sacrifice throughout the rest of the series.

Dumbledore was pleased about this fact because this was the only way, in my belief, that the result of this war would end with Voldemort dying and Harry living. Any other alternative would have either resulted in both dying or possibly with Voldemort living and Harry dying. I don't believe in that Master of Death theory at all where it states that, because Harry at one point or another had possession/ownership of all three Hallows, he suddenly became immortal. After all the warnings we've been given against seeking immortality for any reason, I don't think Rowling would have had her hero suddenly wielding immortality to cheat death like that. The overarching theme of the whole series has been the theme of motherly love and sacrifice; therefore, it makes far more sense to me that Voldemort making the arrogant choice of taking Harry's blood to reap the benefits of Lily's sacrifice was what ultimately ensured his destruction in the end.

I realize that some of this is kind or repetitive, but I felt that was necessary in order to reiterate some points. If anything still doesn't make sense--and I wouldn't be surprised because this is really like Inception all over again--I'd be happy to try to explain further.

[Jess]

Melody wrote: "Jess wrote: "Can you explain the theory about Voldemort having Harry's blood being the thing that allowed him to survive? (whether you believe he died and came back or didn't die at all)

I've ment..."


Well that all makes sense and I appreciate the explanation :)

After this discussion I'm definitely going to go back and read the series through again. Because as it stands, though I like the theory, I don't recall reading anything to suggest that Harry's blood being within Voldemort is the thing that tethered him to life.

Also, as an aside, I'm not sure a Death Eater could have killed Harry. My only reason for believing that is they needed the sword covered in Basalisk venom to kill Nagini because regular means of killing her wouldn't work on a Horcrux. I kind of assumed those same rules applied to killing Harry since he was a Horcrux. But I guess that's another discussion altogether!

Anyways, I fully intend to reread the series with your theory in mind now that somebody has explained in a way that makes it plausible, so thank you!

[Elizabeth]

The first time I read it, I think I was too stupid to understand the situation. The second time, I got it more. He didn't really die, the killing curse only destroyed Voldemort's soul. I know it's still kind of hard to know why it worked that way but Harry wasn't supposed to die at that time either way.

[Melody]

Jess wrote: "Also, as an aside, I'm not sure a Death Eater could have killed Harry. My only reason for believing that is they needed the sword covered in Basalisk venom to kill Nagini because regular means of killing her wouldn't work on a Horcrux. I kind of assumed those same rules applied to killing Harry since he was a Horcrux. But I guess that's another discussion altogether!"

Let me try to explain this point a little better, since I rushed through it before. It's my belief that they needed the sword in order to destroy the unliving horcruxes--like the ring, the locket, the cup, the diadem, etc. However, Nagini actually was a living thing, and in HBP Dumbledore talks about how dangerous it is for a horcrux to be put inside a living thing, because once that thing dies, the horcurx has nothing to cling to and thus will die with its host. Moreover, you cannot kill an object because it's not living, so that's why the Killing Curse couldn't work on the locket and other things. To simplify, I believe that a Killing Curse would kill the living host of a horcrux. The curse itself wouldn't be what destroys the horcrux, but rather it would be the lost of the horcrux's living host that destroys it. It's a cause-and-effect type of thing.

I think the movie kind of complicates this belief, because we do actually see Ron cast a Killing Curse at Nagini, and it appears to have no effect. It's been shown, though, that a Killing Curse will not actually kill something or someone if you don't want to mean it with your whole everything, so Ron's failed attempt to kill Nagini with a Killing Curse in the movie could just be something that speaks to his character. That he's not someone who is capable of cold-blooded murder, even against a snake that's about to kill him and his girlfriend.

In the book, though, I don't believe anyone ever tries to kill Nagini with a Killing Curse. Neville gets the sword, and he just goes for it. So, it could have been the basilisk venom that did Nagini-and thus the horcrux--in or it could have been the whole beheading thing. Or both.

This same concept with Nagini would also apply to Harry. Because, honestly, if Harry couldn't be killed by Voldemort or his Death Eaters, then there would have been no need for the extreme measures Dumbledore went through in order to protect him in the first place. He certainly wouldn't have had to live at the Dursley's, relying on his mother's protection, either. Whether you believe Harry died at the end, or not, if he was separated from his body, or if he was having visions inside his own head, I think Voldemort's Killing Curse was what triggered the horcrux's separation from its living host. Harry was, I think, caught in between life and death; that choice to move "on" wouldn't have been there, I think, if he wasn't hovering on the precipice of something like that, and I think that point of virtual nonexistence was enough to convince the horcrux that it had lost its living host. So, that's why the horcrux was defeated. By that point, it had nothing to cling to in order to keep it in the living world. Which is why it was in that sort of limbo with Harry, doomed to stay there forever.

Jesus, I hope that made sense. And this isn't even, y'know, the end all theory or anything. I'm sure other people have arguments about this that could throw me under a bus, but this is what I've come to understand through reading it. It's a series of theories that I feel good about, just because there is so much from the books that back it up. But I'm sure there's other stuff there, too, that entirely contradicts it.

[Emma]

Melody: A series of theories, ha! Sorry, I just found it funny. But wow, that was interesting to read. Thanks for that!

I just wanted to share what my friend and I joked about after we had both finished the 7th book: Wait, so Harry was basically INVINCIBLE this whole time? If killed, he could just bounce back up??? (once, anyway) COME ON!!!

But I never wanted Harry to die, all though I didn't really like him after the 5th book. I just think that he'd been through too many close calls to just die in the end anyway. Also, a lot of characters would have been killed off for nothing. I know, I know, real life isn't fair, but come on, Harry's life wasn't exactly what I'd call fair either. I think in killing him off, we would have missed something.

[Jenn]

I agree Harry didn't die, the Horecrux part died. He passed out in the forest and that was when he had the conversation with Dumbledore. If you want to say he died, then it was the part of him that was Voldemort (Horecrux) not Harry himself.

[Melody]

Emma wrote: "Melody: A series of theories, ha! Sorry, I just found it funny. But wow, that was interesting to read. Thanks for that!

I just wanted to share what my friend and I joked about after we had both fi..."

Hahaha, it sounds like I'm trying to sell a knock-off of Philosophy for Dummies, or some crap, doesn't it? It's all good, though. I love making people laugh, even if unintentionally.

And sorry to hear that you didn't like Harry much after book five. I agree with you, though, about not wanting him killed; I would have probably lost my faith in a lot of things if Harry had ended up dead in the end. I think, overall, we do appreciate stories with sad endings over the ones with happy ones, because for some reason it does seem more "real" to us. We tend to forget about the success stories that are out there. The miracles and the survivors' stories. The strength of the human spirit and the perseverance against the odds. I guess that's just telling about the sort of society we live in now.

[[deleted user]]

Harry Potter coming back to life was not a bad thing to me. It was probably the most Badass Book moment ever. I freaking cheered when reading that.

[[deleted user]]

no it doesn't bother me because he never did die. no matter how we explain it though, those people out there that want harry dead will never change their opinion. they will still see what JKR did as a "chickening out". i see it as really clever and i am not bothered by it in the least. the part of voldemort in harry died and harry's life was never actually at risk. now, this could show that all those life-risking things harry did in the past 6 books were pointless because he never actually risked his life. the point though is that he thought he was, just like he thought he was when he went into the forest. not sure if this answer makes as much sense in words as it does in my head but i hope i helped.

[[deleted user]]

Fran wrote: "no it doesn't bother me because he never did die. no matter how we explain it though, those people out there that want harry dead will never change their opinion. they will still see what JKR did a..."

Nope I get you girl;)lol you make sense and I agree!

[[deleted user]]

Fran wrote: "no it doesn't bother me because he never did die. no matter how we explain it though, those people out there that want harry dead will never change their opinion. they will still see what JKR did a..."

Nope I get you girl;)lol you make sense and I agree!

[Richard]

I did not read all of these comments, but the fact is simple: Like it or not, there are elements of Christianity written throughout the series. Rowling stated herself that her belief in Christianity would be apparent in the final book. I always thought Harry would live and the fact that he died and returned was not a coincidence. It was the only way that this story could properly end given the fact that (whether you like it or not, and I do for the record like it) this story is based somewhat on the teachings of Christianity. I like the fact that a children's story (that is after all how it was intended from the beginning) ends happily. It should end happily. If you are not interested in happy endings stop reading children/teen literature. There were many questions unresolved in the story, but in the main, the story was wonderful for what it was intended to be. I am just glad that Rowling did not forsake her goal of writing to children and teenagers just because the adult masses of society took to reading and critiquing her work. Good on ya JKR.

[Bayan]

You know what's even sillier? Harry surviving an Avada Kedavra just because of his mother's blood protection. It made no sense for me.

I've never thought of Harry as the real hero. There is always someone to protect or help him, and even when there isn't, his mother's blood will.

[Jannie]

no not really.

[Emma]

Harry didn't die, he just let Voldemort kill the part of his own soul that was in harry.

[Kristen]

Harry didn't die, he had to let the horcrux part of him be destroyed so that it could break the tie between him and Voldemort. Remember that Voldemort gave a little of his power to Harry, and that is why he could talk to snakes just like Voldemort. And for Voldemort to die, all the horcuxes had to be destroyed.

[Leah]

She didn't 'chicken out' she did what she wanted because she's the author and she's boss.

[C]

Rachel wrote: "Alexia -Team Malec :) wrote: "No. He didn't die. He never did. Voldemort Killed the horcrux part of him-which wasn't meant to be there at all. It was a part of him, it was n thim. he had that chat ..."

What is "Team Malec"?

[[deleted user]]

Bayan wrote: "You know what's even sillier? Harry surviving an Avada Kedavra just because of his mother's blood protection. It made no sense for me.

I've never thought of Harry as the real hero. There is always..."
So Lily is the real heroine of the series?