Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

[Afrobean]

I don't think the "Voldemort couldn't kill Harry because of Harry's blood within him" idea makes much sense. Remember that the thing that the curse DID kill was the piece of Voldemort's own soul that had imprinted into Harry's scar.

So basically, he couldn't kill Harry because of Harry's blood within him, yet he could kill his OWN SOUL?

EDIT: as for not showing every who died and killing people off during a giant fight without showing them... that's the writing style for you. Hadn't anyone else noticed that it always follows Harry? Harry couldn't have come across all of the people as they died in battle, so it would make sense that Harry wouldn't find out until the action settled down, and since that's when Harry would learn it, that's when the reader would learn it.

[Shashakiro]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I don't think the "Voldemort couldn't kill Harry because of Harry's blood within him" idea makes much sense. Remember that the thing that the curse DID kill was the piece of Voldemort's own soul that had imprinted into Harry's scar.

So basically, he couldn't kill Harry because of Harry's blood within him, yet he could kill his OWN SOUL?

Well, yeah. I don't see the problem with this, not to mention that it's stated pretty blatantly in the book, looking back on it.

[Chromer]

Originally Posted by Shashakiro

Well, yeah. I don't see the problem with this, not to mention that it's stated pretty blatantly in the book, looking back on it.

Actually that makes perfect sense. Harry's blood still carried the imprint of Voldemort's soul so when he killed him in the Forbidden Forest, that was the first piece to die. Last piece was Voldemort's spell rebounding on him that killed him after Nevill killed Nagini.

More unanswered questions:

1) Is Harry living at Grimmauld Place? Did all the death eaters who knew its location die?
2) Is Ted Tonks a werewolf?
3) If getting emotionally close to a horcrux lets Voldemort possess you, how come he didn't possess anyone close to Harry?

[tsugomaru]

Chardish, this story is filled with plot holes. Although I really don't want to defend the book, I'll give you my theories to your questions.

1) Yes, he lives at Grimmauld Place, he inherited it from Sirius and he has allied himself with the house elf there. The house has probably changed after the nineteen years to something more "Griffindorish" like. Death-eaters wouldn't touch Harry Potter, they have no reason to anymore.

2) Ted Tonks is half-werewolf the same way Hagrid is half giant and Grawp is half human.

3) Harry Potter, unlike all the other Horcruxes is alive and a Human. As such, different rules can be made since he isn't an object like a diary, ring, locket, cup, or diadem; or the snake, Nagini.

~Tsugomaru

[Chromer]

Originally Posted by chardish

More unanswered questions:

1) Is Harry living at Grimmauld Place? Did all the death eaters who knew its location die?
2) Is Ted Tonks a werewolf?
3) If getting emotionally close to a horcrux lets Voldemort possess you, how come he didn't possess anyone close to Harry?

1. I'm thinking at this point, probably yes. It was inherited from Sirius so Ginny probably knew Harry had a strong connection to the place.

2. I'm going to go ahead and say no. Remus became upset when talking about Nymphadora's parents and them not accepting him being a werewolf. This can only mean they were pureblood wizards who shunned unions such as wizard and werewolf.

3. The only reason Voldemort couldn't posess anyone but Harry was because pa part of his soul was in him. As long as the piece remained, it connected Harry to Voldemort. If you remember when Harry, Hermione, and Ron were camping in the one forest, anyone other than Harry but feel extremely melancholy and fearful. Harry however, became even more aware of his connection with Voldemort and could see through his eyes.

[mfelten86]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Soujiro, can you please use line breaks? That wall-of-text format is incredibly hard to read.

I re-read the King's Cross scene for comprehension. Turns out it was the blood tie between them, not the easier-to-understand Master of Death concept I had taken away from it all.

Whatever. Dumbledore DOES tell Harry he is the rightful owner of all three Hallows during that scene, thereby making him the Master of Death. You can't prove to me that the blood tie is the reason he's capable of choosing the path he takes: returning to life or dying. I think if he weren't the Master of Death, he just wouldn't have died in the forest. He wouldn't have had the chance to talk to the dead (Dumbledore), nor would he have had a choice.

I think if Harry wasn't the master of death he still would have taken the path to be killed in the forest.

Harry knew that Voldermort had to kill him from what he saw in the penseive. (It would have been a more difficult choice for Harry though, but he would not allow more of his friends to die while he ran/fought)

Harry still would not have died in the forest because Voldermort would have killed the hocrux which resides in Harry, not Harry himself.

[Afrobean]

Actually, I think Harry's thought of what would happen in the forest was that Voldemort couldn't die as long as he was alive. Basically, he knew he had to give himself to Voldemort to be "killed" (even if his actual death never came through on it...). Actually... I forget. Was it revealed that his scar was an unintentional horcrux before or after Harry went to Voldemort to be killed?

And something I just thought of. Voldemort acted through Nagini to attack Ron's father (evidenced by the fact that Harry saw the whole thing from the snake's perspective, meaning it was Voldemort's eyes he was seeing through, even if he was acting though the great snake). Was this because of a magical connection made thanks to his parseltongue (Harry never exhibited a power like this, but perhaps that was because his power over snakes was not as true as Voldemort's) or was it because he could act through this horcrux (recall that Harry was learning Occlumency to keep the Dark Lord out of his head). If he can act through living horcruxes (recall that Harry was learning Occlumency to keep Voldemort out of his head), why was he unaware when the nonliving ones were "killed"?

ps another thing: did anyone else notice the name system they had for Voldemort? People on his side would refer to him as "the Dark Lord", those opposed to him would refer to him by name (a few of which, actually calling him out as "Tom Riddle"), and people who feared him calling him as "he who must not be named" or "you know who". Then I noticed, I believe it was Dumbledore at King's Cross call him as the Dark Lord. I just thought it was weird.

[Squeek]

What I find more odd about the name thing was that sometimes, those opposed to him would split the middle of the Death Eaters and the Order and call him "Lord Voldemort".

That really makes no sense to me.

Also, Harry knew he was a horcrux before he went to be killed. He just didn't know he'd survive.

[dore]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

And something I just thought of. Voldemort acted through Nagini to attack Ron's father (evidenced by the fact that Harry saw the whole thing from the snake's perspective, meaning it was Voldemort's eyes he was seeing through, even if he was acting though the great snake). Was this because of a magical connection made thanks to his parseltongue (Harry never exhibited a power like this, but perhaps that was because his power over snakes was not as true as Voldemort's) or was it because he could act through this horcrux (recall that Harry was learning Occlumency to keep the Dark Lord out of his head).

He could possess animals, regardless. The book had never said whether the snake is a horcrux at that point (the snake was a kind of last resort to get another horcrux out there, not really part of his initial plan), so there's no way to be certain whether that was an issue.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by dore

He could possess animals, regardless. The book had never said whether the snake is a horcrux at that point (the snake was a kind of last resort to get another horcrux out there, not really part of his initial plan), so there's no way to be certain whether that was an issue.

Didn't Dumbledore muse that Nagini might have been a horcrux in Half Blood Prince?

[dore]

Yes, and Neville killed Nagini.

But in the 5th book Dumbledore didn't mention that Nagini was a horcrux so you can't say for certain she was.

[spaztazticx3fairy]

Pretty much post, if you want.

Anyways, it was basically confusing to me. Probably because I wasn't in the right state of mind to be reading at the time; I was very sick from a right ear infection, and had a very bad cold. I was almost unconcious from lack of sleep from camp the previous week. But we aren't exactly talking about that, are we?

On an important matter, I thought the last few chapters were the best to me. Where the trio enters Hogwarts to see the original Dumbledore's Army.

The epilogue wasn't as great as I thought it would be, though. I was somewhat disappointed in it, but I still found it very well done; JK is a fantastic writer.

=]

[FlameFalco]

I agree with you the best part was when they entered Hogwarts. Thats when the story seemed to pick up pace. Before then they were completely cofused on what they had to do(destory horcruxes or collect Hallows). Also I really liked the final battle between Harry and Voldemort.

[Squeek]

Threads merged.

Please do a search before making new threads.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by dore

Yes, and Neville killed Nagini.

But in the 5th book Dumbledore didn't mention that Nagini was a horcrux so you can't say for certain she was.

5th book?

The term horcrux never even came up until Half Blood Prince, right?

[devonin]

So I read it about 4 days before the release, and tried like hell not to spoil any of it for anyone, and honestly, I wasn't overly impressed.

JKR really fell afoul of The Curse of Robert Jordan(tm). She opened up so many plotlines and character arcs that in order to actually get the book closed and done, she had to gloss over all kinds of things, leave all kinds of things unanswered, and just generally make not as good a book as she could have made two books.

Coming into the last book also, I had previously figured on Harry being a horcrux, I had figured on Snape being on their side all along, I had figured on RAB being Regulus Black, and I had figured that she'd be too afraid to consider killing off any of the main three kids. As such, being completely unsurprised made the book a bit of a letdown. I wasn't expecting her to actually stay so predictable.

Ruminations:

I'm pissed off that the nastiest magic Harry ever casts is like...one crucio and a bunch of imperious curses. I had figured for sure he'd drop some killing curse action -somewhere- especially after it was made clear to him that he was found out at the start for his predictable preference for expelliarmus.

I really really don't see Harry/Ginny as being overly logical. I mean, I suppose it has something to do with the fact that Ginny gets completely screwed over for character development, but Harry worked a lot better with Cho in my opinion. Don't even get me started on Ron/Hermione. I liked the kiss, since you could tell she'd been waiting ages for him to actually say something that wasn't stupid, but I really can't figure on them getting married and staying so for decades.

Oh...another one. You start at Hogwarts at 12, the epilogue is 19 years later, and their kids are starting first and second years at hogwarts. They made it -6 years- from the end of the book without someone getting pregnant? That's some damn efficient birth control.

The impression that I got all the way through the series was that JKR wasn't sure whether she was writing a kids series (IE. starts at 12, appropriate for 12 year olds all the way through) or writing a coming-of-age series (IE. each book is appropriate for the age of the characters) and she never did make that decision.

Had the last book actually been written for and aimed at 17 year olds, (to say nothing for HBP at 16, and OOTP at 15) they would have been a whole lot better. Instead we're left with protagonists that are hopelessly naive, innocent and unbelievable. DH had an above average amount of romance, violence and death, but even still, she kept inching towards writing age-appropriate content, and then backed off.

[Afrobean]

You can't get too dark with things like this. Even if it would work well as a serious dark story, they have to be aware of the young children who will be reading it. I think they did a decent job of moving towards darkness without going so completely towards the darkness that it would disturb older children.

[soulofcerberus]

As for the people who were disappointed with the epilogue, remember that she had that written when she began the books all the way back in 1990, so despite the advances her writing has undergone, she was going to keep that last chapter the way it was without changing it.

[idancenakeytomsi]

Originally Posted by Chromer

2. I'm going to go ahead and say no. Remus became upset when talking about Nymphadora's parents and them not accepting him being a werewolf. This can only mean they were pureblood wizards who shunned unions such as wizard and werewolf.

I totally agree with you on that.
If you notice, when Remus was talking about how he got bit at what not, he said that you become a warewolf when bitten because it affects the blood.
Although I'm bringing science in with fiction, it is highly unlikely. During child devolpment, the man never shares any of his blood. Only the woman because she is the carrier. And also Remus said something along the lines about regreting marrying Tonks because his son would have to grow up with a warewolf as a father, not as a warewolf. Maybe JK will add more on this in the encyclopedia.