Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Spoilerific)

[Soujiro_The_Tenkan]

shakshiro got the reason harry didnt die. i cant believe you all didnt read dumbledoors speech at the kings cross station. sure she might have spliced in the master of death thing but truly read it again. it was voldemorts foolish understanding of his opponent and taking of harrys blood. please accept this because it is so obvious im glad someone understood what i was saying and stop going on about james dying if i read everything correctly it is true he didnt own the 3 hallows but he owned the cloak which if you read the whole book is the shielder of spells it protects you from death. so from an earlier arguement in this discussion it should have worked for him if he didnt have it on him but it didnt thus proving harry who lacked the ring and the wand in his possession. was not the master of death. and also the curse that harry was hit with wasn't as powerful because the elderwand truly was harry's so it only blasted voldemorts soul out of him putting him in a dream like state. and if you dont remeber harry asks dumbledoor right before he goes back. was this real or just in my mind. and dumbledoor responds just because it is in your mind does not make it any less real.... so please just get it into your heads its all there harry was not the master of death because death never exsisted ne way as dumbledoor also pointed out. he just said the 3 brothers were extroadinary wizards. and by now i truly believe dumbledoor knew what the hell he was talking about. good day

[mfelten86]

Originally Posted by dore

yeah


My major qualms with the book were the way they portrayed Dumbledore and Snape. For 6 books Dumbledore was the goodness of the world, and an unbeatable force of morality, and then all of the sudden he has this dark side that all comes out at the end of the book. Same with Snape, he was evil-appearing throughout the entire series, kills Dumbledore, and oh by the way it was all because he loved Lily Evans. Both characters acted rather stereotypically throughout the entire series, and then in the last book they all of the sudden are completely different. I know that not all characters can be static and one-sided, but Rowling should've foreshadowed their true personalities as they come out at the end of the book.

I think that some of the anger Harry had towards Dumbledore for the past two books could be viewed as foreshadowing. Not necessarily obvious but it makes sense to me.

[Soujiro_The_Tenkan]

his anger with dumbledoor came because he was a living horecrux and voldemort was getting anrgy a crap load now wasnt he? plus he had a horecrux on him throughout most of this book so he was obviously not in a good mood. Basically it was ne other story with the master having secrets that the apperntice feels he should know.

[mmeegghhaann]

most of this thread is tl;dr but...
I was pretty disappointed with the ending of the books. They seemed entirely too predicatable for me.
I agree with many of you that the worst part of it was the shift in personality or perception with many of the main characters (Snape, Dumbledore, Neville). I also wouldn't put Ron and Hermoine together but they are not my books.

Everything seemed to be explained and the prophecy fufilled. The movie should be pretty epic if they do it right and make the last one into at
least two movies.

[l Endorphin l]

The other side of the mirror went to Aberforth... :/

[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.

[mmeegghhaann]

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

[Zageron]

One thing that I absolutely loved about the book...

4 months prior to release I came up with the theory that harry was a horcrux xD! BOY WAS I RIGHT!

[soulofcerberus]

Originally Posted by Soujiro_The_Tenkan

james dying if i read everything correctly it is true he didnt own the 3 hallows but he owned the cloak which if you read the whole book is the shielder of spells it protects you from death

the curse that harry was hit with wasn't as powerful because the elderwand truly was harry's so it only blasted voldemorts soul out of him putting him in a dream like state

harry asks dumbledoor right before he goes back. was this real or just in my mind. and dumbledoor responds just because it is in your mind does not make it any less real

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>

Originally Posted by mmeegghhaann

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

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

[SimpsonFreak345]

Originally Posted by Zageron

One thing that I absolutely loved about the book...

4 months prior to release I came up with the theory that harry was a horcrux xD! BOY WAS I RIGHT!

i predicted the same thing immediately after finishing the 6th book.
but in a way my idea was completely off because i thought harry would have to die completely
then the prophecy wouldnt be completely fulfilled.
i loved how Rowling put all of this together.

SOUJIRO
USE PUNCTUATION, DAMMIT
THIS IS NOT OPTIONAL

[Shashakiro]

Originally Posted by mmeegghhaann

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]

Originally Posted by Shashakiro

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]

Originally Posted by soulofcerberus

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Soujiro_The_Tenkan

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>

Originally Posted by Soujiro_The_Tenkan

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]

Originally Posted by chardish

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SimpsonFreak345

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.