Jav_NE Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I'm gonna be a total Harry Potter nerd right now so if you dont like the books or havn't read the Deathly Hallows you're advised to leave! I've just finnished reading Deathly Hallows again since the first time when it was originally released and i wondered what other Harry Potter fans thought about a few things. After reading it the first time i remember talking about and hearing people discuss how Harry had survived the Avada Kedavra curse in the forest. Now, i remember there being three reasons people would give; the connection of Lily's blood, Harry's courage and willingness to die for the right reasons, and the Deathly Hallows. At the time i thought it was possibly all three, but after reading it again i've noticed that the Hallows have nothing to do with it. Yes, Harry has the cloak and he's master of the Elder Wand because he disarmed Draco, who was the previous master for bringing about Dumbledore's death. Here's problem number one; he doesn't actually possess the wand. The story of the Deathly Hallows clearly says the one who can unite the Hallows will be master of death, but Harry hasn't got the wand, even if he is master of it, he doesn't actually have it, so he is not master of death, and therefore not invincible. But that's not the only reason, reason number two is something i totally didn't take much notice of; Harry drops the Resurrection Stone before he is killed. He could've put it in his pocket or something, but no, J.K makes sure he drops it. So Harry, regardless of what you believe about actually possessing the wand, couldn't be master of death because he isn't holding the Stone. But then you have to wonder whether he has to hold it, whether being the last person to hold it makes him its owner or what, but i think it would at least have to be on him somewhere. Dropped on the ground makes me think he doesn't have it. No wand, no stone = not master of the Hallows. Harry survived the curse in the forrest because of Lily's blood and his fearlessness towards dying. Voldemort took that blood, and the enchantment it carries for protecting Harry, into himself, and so tethered Harry to life even after killing him. That's a given, so, yeah, Harry survives because of it. His courage and willingness to give his life to save others also plays importance in his survival though because Harry showed he didn't fear death. I think people overlook this fact to why he didn't die. A friend of mine pointed out that the blood tether with Voldermort makes Harry invincible then as long as Voldermort is alive, but it doesn't, because it was the acceptance of death and unwillingness to fight back that made the difference. I think people latch on to the Hallows idea because thats the name of the book and it almost makes sense, but it's not the case! At least thats what i think. Anyway, my rambling is done. Feel free to disagree or point out where i've been wrong as i dont pretend to know everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 As for the wand thing, the impression I got was that the Elder wand's powers had transferred into Harry's wand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I didn't really understand why Harry didn't die when I read it the first time, though reading about the connection with Lily's blood afterwards made sense - I certainly didn't think it was because he was 'master of death'. I'm in the middle of my second read-through of this too at the moment, though I'm reading the French version I got for my birthday. Just got to the part where they raid Bellatrix's vault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 It's been a while since I read it, but I think the way I saw it was that the factors of Lily's charm and Harry's courage protected Harry and led Voldemort to destroy only the Horcrux hidden in Harry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I thought it was made clear that it was his dying for everyone else without fear of his own death in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 SNAPE KILLS DUMBL-- Oh, you already knew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 They'll just explain everything as it being his parent's love which stopped X from happening. Since that's pretty much what started the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Yay! Nerdy Potter questions! Right up my alley! First of all, possessing all three Hallows is not what saves Harry. The term Master of Death merely refers to the the fact that with all three Hallows, one can defeat anyone, see those who are dead, and "hide" from death (though the last is merely a turn of phrase). It doesn't make the possessor immortal or anything. Second of all, Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins keeps the protection alive, and as Dumbledore believes, Harry's sacrifice "may have made all the difference". This probably means that while Harry is still mortal even if the protection is there, his sacrifice for his friends most likely meant that his own protection saved him from the killing curse. As Voldemort wasn't protected, the seventh piece of his soul inside Harry was destroyed. There is one thing that doesn't quite add up, though. As we later see when Voldemort tries to torture Harry, the Elder Wand is rightfully Harry's and therefore can't harm him. Still, that would mean he would have survived no matter what. Of course, there are always small loopholes, errors and mistakes in such grand and complex stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Second of all, Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins keeps the protection alive, and as Dumbledore believes, Harry's sacrifice "may have made all the difference". It's great how they break away from what something/someone is meant to do and turn everything around on some moral technicality. BELIEVE IN THE HEART OF THE CARDS BITCHES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 It's been a while since I read it, but I think the way I saw it was that the factors of Lily's charm and Harry's courage protected Harry and led Voldemort to destroy only the Horcrux hidden in Harry. thats what i thought. i also think that mayhe you don't need to actually have the hallows on your person at all times, just have the items acknowledge you as their current master, so you can keep them safe as home, and go out not dying etc. maybe. i harry potter (the books, not the character of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 Yay! Nerdy Potter questions! Right up my alley! First of all, possessing all three Hallows is not what saves Harry. The term Master of Death merely refers to the the fact that with all three Hallows, one can defeat anyone, see those who are dead, and "hide" from death (though the last is merely a turn of phrase). It doesn't make the possessor immortal or anything. There is one thing that doesn't quite add up, though. As we later see when Voldemort tries to torture Harry, the Elder Wand is rightfully Harry's and therefore can't harm him. Still, that would mean he would have survived no matter what. True, there is that. I have to admit i was guitly of thinking the Hallows would make the owner invincible, they are Dumbledores own words afterall. And yeah, it makes the final confontation between Harry and Voldemort a mere formality. There's no way Harry could have lost. I suppose if Voldemort was smart enough not to use the wand after what Harry had told him they could have duelled and Voldemort could have won. Oh my God! He's so stupid! Harry didn't have the phoenix wand, so he wouldnt have been saved by it like earlier in the book. Am i thinking right? I don't see how Harry could have had the upper hand if that were the case, apart from the blood tie, but Harry was prepared to fight this time, if he had lost surely it wouldnt be enough to bring him back again? thats what i thought. i also think that mayhe you don't need to actually have the hallows on your person at all times, just have the items acknowledge you as their current master, so you can keep them safe as home, and go out not dying etc. maybe. Well, that's definitely how the wand works, but wands are special. The wand chooses the wizard and all that, its like they have their own kind of magic. The other Hallows i would have thought you'd need to have on you. But it all comes down to whether you believe the Hallows make you immortal or not, and as Dannyboy says it might not be the case. Clearly alot of people do though otherwise the theory wouldn't have come up, and i dont remember it being explicitly said otherwise. I suppose its easy to believe that they do; master of death, invincible etc - but who knows. No-one has ever united all three Hallows before, so how could they know? That's how i like to look at it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolness Bears Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I don't remember that much from the book but I remember enjoying it. I didn't even know how he survived as I was really annoyed that he didn't die! Also I remember a disturbing chapter were him and Dumbledore were floating naked above a train.... and then harry comes back to life... Is this real? I seriously need to read this book again. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 Also I remember a disturbing chapter were him and Dumbledore were floating naked above a train.... and then harry comes back to life... Is this real? I seriously need to read this book again. :p Haha, no. Harry is naked when he first wakes up in the imaginary place, which he believes is Kings Cross station, but he finds some clothes after wishing he had some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 From what I remember, Harry had a Horcrux inside him, and his willingness to die pretty much directed the spell into that Horcrux. It's been a while, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarf Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I felt no sandess when Tonks died at all, but Hedwig and Lupin I did. What was Tonk's role anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I felt no sandess when Tonks died at all, but Hedwig and Lupin I did. What was Tonk's role anyway? There were a few deaths that were just meaningless, there was no emotion in them whatsoever apart from "oh yeah, x is dead by the way". Hopefully the film'll do them justice. Hedwig's death was sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 How can you say that about Hedwig, he did jack shit. All he ever did was sit in his tiny cage while Harry fucked about. It was cruel. Killing him was the best thing that could happen to him. Put the poor thing out of his misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolness Bears Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Haha, no. Harry is naked when he first wakes up in the imaginary place, which he believes is Kings Cross station, but he finds some clothes after wishing he had some. Ah so at least Harry was naked at some point I was not just imagining it! No explanation for Dumbledore though... *shifty eyes* Okay so I started reading this again today, I'm not that far yet! A lot of the deaths were not needed especially at the end I mean colin creevy what's the point? The saddest Death was Dobby! That's the only one I really cared about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 How can you say that about Hedwig, he did jack shit. All he ever did was sit in his tiny cage while Harry fucked about. It was cruel. Killing him was the best thing that could happen to him. Put the poor thing out of his misery. Wait, not that one... The saddest Death was Dobby! That's the only one I really cared about! Brought me to the brink of tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarf Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I'll have you know that Hedwig was there for moral and also delivered messages. It would have been a nice to touch to set the thing free, instead of just kill it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolness Bears Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Wait, not that one... Brought me to the brink of tears. Same. I think I stopped reading for the day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 The only thing I can remember from the last book is that there was some kind of big battle near the end. It's probably the worst one of the lot (actually, second worst. Half-Blood Prince was worse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esequiel Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Im about the biggest Harry Potter nerd about ^^ I didnt like the 7th book though, i spoiled it for myself by reading it on the net a week before it came out. It just didnt feel right, like the first 6 books were 1 huge story and the last one was just tagged on. But enough of that :P From what I remember, Harry had a Horcrux inside him, and his willingness to die pretty much directed the spell into that Horcrux. Correct. It wasnt really a Horcrux since Voldemort didnt know about it, but a little piece of Voldemorts soul was stuck in Harry. While Harry survived voldemort couldnt be killed, but when harry let himself be AK'd it destroyed voldemorts last link to him. In book 4 the whole reason he used Harrys blood was to get rid of the protection Lily gave Harry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jav_NE Posted August 29, 2008 Author Share Posted August 29, 2008 Bah, the last two books are by far the best. OOTP is the worst. Anyway, Hedwigs death was sad because not only was she a companian to Harry, she was his only connection to the wizard world during the summer. She was also a birthday present from Hagrid dont forget, and marks his first day as a wizard. Tonks is kind of important because she marries Lupin and has baby Teddy, a kid that the Potters look after in the future. It was important too to establish the shame Lupin felt being a werewolf, and how different the influence of that is outside of Hogwarts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Now, Hedwig, HER death was important because it symbolised the break away from innocent childhood. I still don't think the Hallows make you immortal. I always read "The Matser of Death" as a turn of phrase. All that about cheating death was merely the way the Hallows' powers were presented in Beedle the Bard's tale. And Jav, Harry didn't need the Phoenix Wand. As mentioned by Dumbledore, the magical connection between Harry and Voldemort goes beyond that of their wands, beyond any magic ever before. They have a piece of each other in themselves, so it doesn't matter if they use the twin wands or not. Draco's old wand recognises Harry as its master and so the connection works with it, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts