Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

[User6773]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

SOUJIRO
USE PUNCTUATION, DAMMIT
THIS IS NOT OPTIONAL

[Shashakiro]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

One question I still have is what exactly was it that killed Sirius? Am I just missing something?

Or, phrased another way, what exactly WAS beyond the veil?

I guess it was "death", but I'd have liked a more concrete explanation.

[Squeek]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

Or, phrased another way, what exactly WAS beyond the veil?

I guess it was "death", but I'd have liked a more concrete explanation.

It's really hard to explain. I think the movie did it justice.

To be honest, I still have no idea. I think it's a gateway between the living and the dead. Once you cross over, there's no turning back.

[Soujiro_The_Tenkan]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

I'm going to take on these specific points.

The cloak was never the "shielder of spells" and the only way it protects you from death is by being invisible. Invisible all the time, no matter what, never fading, never growing weaker, and never losing its invisibility due to spells. The reason it protected the one brother from death is because no matter where death looked death could not find the brother (until the brother walked with him willingly). Thus James died even though he was the owner because he didn't have the cloak with him and the cloak wouldn't have kept him from dying if he was hit by the death spell in the first place.

It's not that avada kadevra was any less powerful. If you truly had such a vast comprehension of the book, the curse always kills the target unless it misses or there is a special circumstance (aka twin cores). What wand Voldemort used was inconsequential because the spell would've killed either way (because "their use requires a strong desire to bring about the effects, a directed will, and great skill" and Voldemort had all three to the extreme). Harry should've been killed yet he wasn't because of the blood Voldemort took (and perhaps also because of some connection to the deathly hallows).

Yes you got one thing right. Dumbledore specifically states that just because it was in Harry's head (which was quite obvious) that it doesn't make it any less real. Which in my opinion and I'm sure in the opinions of many other makes the whole even in King's Cross quite real (being that Harry found out information that he could not have known any other way).

<edit>

He fell through the arch/portal/curtain in the 5th book.

Ok ok, You are coming after me without reading all of my entries or squeeks. We were argueing over a phew things and you come in and try to explain the whole book to me? Buddy i understand all of this quite well and you shouldnt qoute just one of my qoutes then pick at it.

Oh and btw Umm the avada kadavra if you havent noticed doesnt work on harry i know about the killing curse you moron. And saying oh it needs a special circumstance no **** who do you think harry is?

And lastly read the book the cloak is the shielder of spells because DEATH NEVER EXSISTED IF YOU LISTEN TO WHAT DUMBLEDOOR SAYS ITS FOLKLORE FOR THE LAST TIME THE BROTHERS WERE GREAT WIZARDS AND MADE THE HALLOWS THEMSELVES. If you read the entire book instead of just the ending you will learn of the hallows alot more then what you appearntly know. So please before you pick apart a simple qoute of mine which in turn was only and arguement with squeek about 1 tiny aspect of the book. Read the rest of what we have said and get it into your head. Before you boast of what little knowledge you have of this series

Oh and more about the Avada Kadavra the twin cores only affected harry and voldemort through book 4-6.
Voldemort searched for the elder wand because he couldn't figure out why harry could still beat him when he
wasnt using his original wand. It is because of the blood which i already stated long before you joined this arguement.
And if you didnt read the whole book you wouldnt understand so much about wands now would you?
Wands that dont belong to you and that haven't been won wont work as well for you. So the elder wand wouln't work for voldemort as well as it should
Or maybe you forgot why voldemort killed snape becasue he thought he was the owner of it. Truly you need to go back and re read basically the entire book.

[User6773]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

Personally, I was really expecting Sirius to come back at some point. Falling behind that veil seemed like a kind of not-death, much akin to Gandalf falling into the chasm in Moria.

[soulofcerberus]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

Ok ok, You are coming after me without reading all of my entries or squeeks. We were argueing over a phew things and you come in and try to explain the whole book to me? Buddy i understand all of this quite well and you shouldnt qoute just one of my qoutes then pick at it.

Oh and btw Umm the avada kadavra if you havent noticed doesnt work on harry i know about the killing curse you moron. And saying oh it needs a special circumstance no **** who do you think harry is?

And lastly read the book the cloak is the shielder of spells because DEATH NEVER EXSISTED IF YOU LISTEN TO WHAT DUMBLEDOOR SAYS ITS FOLKLORE FOR THE LAST TIME THE BROTHERS WERE GREAT WIZARDS AND MADE THE HALLOWS THEMSELVES. If you read the entire book instead of just the ending you will learn of the hallows alot more then what you appearntly know. So please before you pick apart a simple qoute of mine which in turn was only and arguement with squeek about 1 tiny aspect of the book. Read the rest of what we have said and get it into your head. Before you boast of what little knowledge you have of this series

I have read every single book the first days they came out. INCLUDING the first one (when you consider the US release date since I live here) because my grandma got it for me and made me read it cause it was "such a good book that I had to buy it."

I know full well about the series and I understand it all, I read all of the books. I read the entire 7th book. I started at 4:30PM and finished at 2:48AM and I full well understood the whole book. I do not appreciate you attacking my knowledge of the series.

I was responding to your quote because we are discussing literature and in a public forum I do not see that you have an inherent right to exclude me from responding, whether or not you meant it only towards Squeak. The reason I chose those parts of your posts is because I meant to directly explain my opinions on only those points. Never in my post did I attempt to "explain the whole book" to you.

When I said that the curse only fails with special circumstances I meant exactly that. All of the times where Harry was not killed by it had specific special circumstances behind it. Harry Potter being Harry Potter is not a special circumstance because he can be killed by that curse just like everybody else.

Also as you claim the Invisibility Cloak is a "shielder or spells" Don't you think that Dumbledore would've kept the cloak with him, as it would have given him some sort of immunity to the killing curse as well as other spells? It is true that it's invisibility is not affected by spells, but that does not mean that it is a wearable shield to all spells for the owner.

Before attacking me and my knowledge, next time you can hopefully argue in a reasonable manner.

<edit> though you can't read this, nice edit while I was typing my post. I might edit that in sometime.

<edit 2>

Oh and more about the Avada Kadavra the twin cores only affected harry and voldemort through book 4-6.
Voldemort searched for the elder wand because he couldn't figure out why harry could still beat him when he
wasnt using his original wand. It is because of the blood which i already stated long before you joined this arguement.
And if you didnt read the whole book you wouldnt understand so much about wands now would you?
Wands that dont belong to you and that haven't been won wont work as well for you. So the elder wand wouln't work for voldemort as well as it should
Or maybe you forgot why voldemort killed snape becasue he thought he was the owner of it. Truly you need to go back and re read basically the entire book.

I don't need to re-read the book because of this. I'll probably end up re-reading it because I want to. First off, the twin cores affected Harry and Voldemort through book 7 as well (as described about the even in which Harry's wand acted on its own accord to attack Voldemort, who was using another wand to bypass the twin cores [though the book suggested the wand acted on its own accord because of the event during the 4th book in the graveyard, that Harry's wand might've been imbued with a bit of Voldemort, thus recognizing him as kin and foe]).

Yes wands that don't belong to you and haven't ben won won't work as well for you. Which is why harry survived Voldemort's final spell (in their duel) and had his curse rebounded back, thus killing him. That was because the Elder Wand refused to kill it's rightful owner, but also because Harry had casted another spell to bounce it back at Voldemort (as far as I understand). Yet Voldemort was completely able to kill and cast his spells with the wand, he just didn't feel the greater strength of the wand that he was expecting because he wasn't the proper owner.

Fin

[Squeek]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

Personally, I was really expecting Sirius to come back at some point. Falling behind that veil seemed like a kind of not-death, much akin to Gandalf falling into the chasm in Moria.

Of which I constantly joke about.

I, too, was disappointed in the way Sirius died. I didn't really believe it until the book ended and he still wasn't there.

[User6773]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

Did Lupin and Tonks dying feel to you like a way for Rowling to increase the body count by unceremoniously killing off some characters we cared about without even letting us see them die? I can see Lupin dying (having learned his lesson after Harry talked some sense into him at Grimmauld Place), but Tonks? Yikes.

Also, we never saw Umbridge get her comeuppance.

[SimpsonFreak345]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

does anybody know what the baby-like thing was in the "Kings Cross" chapter?
Dumbledore kept saying to not worry about it.

also, i agree with ^^. Tonks dying was a "what?" moment.

[Squeek]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

does anybody know what the baby-like thing was in the "Kings Cross" chapter?
Dumbledore kept saying to not worry about it.

also, i agree with ^^. Tonks dying was a "what?" moment.

I thought it was pretty obvious.

That was the piece of Voldemort's soul in Harry.

[Afrobean]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

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]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

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]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

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.

[User6773]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

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]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

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