Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Reaction thread: Harry Potter Book 7. SPOILERS!

Spoiler space

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Hi! Okay, to answer your question about Harry, no he doesn't die. He believes he has to, in order to save everyone, so he goes forth and allows Voldemort to use the killing curse on him. He ends up in a dreamlike state where Dumbledore explains to him that Voldemort actually killed the "Voldemort manifestation" inside Harry. Oh this is wierd to explain. Someone else could probably do a better job of it, but I'll give it my best shot. When the curse rebounded off Harry as a baby and gave him that scar, it also gave him a curious link to Voldemort. He could feel when he was angry, happy, ect. When Harry met him in the forest ready for Voldemort to kill him, the avada kedavra curse only ended up killing the link to Voldemort in him. He regained consciousness later and fought, ect. But to answer your question in a nutshell, no, Harry doesn't die. Hope that made sense, I know it's a little bizarre.

Laura

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
S
P
A
C
E

Harry dying...hee, hee, JKR must have been giggling to herself abut that for quite a while, especially considering the tumult she threw the entire fandom into by hinting that she MIGHT go the way of Arthur Conan Doyle and end it with a Sherlock-Moriarty type showdown. Only she could have pulled it off so that she could have her cake and eat it too...

Voldemort tried to kill Harry when he was a baby, but couldn't because the his mother sacrificed her life to save him, and the love sacrifice invoked a magical protection so powerful that V's killing curse rebounded upon himself, ripping him from his body. However Voldemort had taken measures to bind his soul to earth, by creating Horcruxes, and so could not be truly destroyed simply by destroying his body. Horcruxes are one of the darkest and most evil magic there is, because it invloves the splitting of one's soul. When a person commits a deliberate murder, his soul gets fragmented, and thus it is possible for the soul to be ripped in half and stowed in an object that would bind that part to earth.

Voldemort's, an egomaniac to end all egomaniacs, didn't just have a grand plan of world domination - his ultimate goal was mmortality, defeating death itself. Since seven was the most magically powerful number, he decided to split his soul into seven - six Horcruxes hidden in different places and the piece of soul that would exist in his living body. However, what he didn't realize was that each ripping of his soul made it more and more unstable. When Voldemort cast the killing curse upon Harry as a baby, and it rebounded upon him, a part of his soul was torn off, unbeknownst to him, and attached itself to the only other living thing in the buring house - baby Harry. Thus, Harry became the seventh, unintended Horcrux. However, Harry was also protected from Voldemort by the love magic his mother had inadvertently invoked, that continued to endure in his very blood.

Voldemort, in the fourth book, captured Harry and used his blood to regenerate himself back to human form. He used Harry's blood so that the love protection that resided in his veins would bind him too, thus nullifying its defence of Harry against him.

Dumbledore, before his death, gives Harry the task of finding and destorying all the Horcruxes (without letting him know that he himself is one)because it when they are all destroyed that Voldemort can truly be killed.Dumbledore knew that the only way to get rid of the last one is for Harry to knowingly and deliberately allow himself to be killed by Voldemort.

Harry realizes this at the end, and knows the only way is to walk toward his own death, without attmepting to defend himself. He presents himself to Voldemort, who casts the killing curse at him.

What happens next is much debated. Some people insist that Harry did die for a few moments, and met Dumbledore in the space between Here and Beyond before choosing to return back to life and finishing the job. Others say he was simply knocked out and dreamed the whole encounter. Personally, I agree with the former theory. Dumbledore, ever the plot expositor even after death, tells him that the reason Voldemort couldn't kill him was that his mother's love runs in the veins of the living Voldemort, binding Harry to life as surely as the piece of soul in Harry's body had bound Voldemort. However, Voldemort's killing curse had successfully destroyed the piece of soul residing in Harry. Dumbledore then gives Harry a choice - accept death and choose to move on, or return to the living and attempt to finish the job he was given, taking the risk that Voldemort still might win. Harry chhoses to go back.

As for the rest - read the book. It's worth it.

Spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A friend who just reviewed this for the Times Literary Supplement thinks very highly of it, and feels that it makes some very interesting moral arguments.

But she also points out that Voldemort has to be the most incompetent villain ever. Everything he does seems to be calculated to annoy and terrify his supporters nearly as much as his enemies. He even (sort of) makes the classic Evil Overlord mistake of changing into a snake, or at least putting part of his soul there. He kills his trusty lieutenants on a theory (not even proven) that it will improve his magical ability.

I'm not sure that this is in the review, it's somthing we were talking about on the phone, but the review itself ought to be in the next issue of the TLS. I think she's also putting it on line, I'll post a link once it's up.

later (by about 15 minutes) Turns out it's on line already here and that the crapness of Voldemort does not, in fact, feature in it.

I doubt this counts as a spoiler, but since it follows on from...

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

... something Marcus says, I'll put in some extra space, just in case.

My personal view is that Voldemort isn't so much incompetent as psychopathic.

I can remember, when I was reading book six, gasping and thinking, "So that's it! Voldemort is a psychopath!" That he is horrible to both enemies and supporters alike, I think, arises from this.

Why do I think he's a psychopath / sociopath? Because I remember reading somewhere ages ago that one of the characteristics of a psychopath is the inability to feel love / normal emotions.

My dictionary doesn't actually mention the love thing. Instead it describes a psychopath as someone who commits antisocial and sometimes violent acts, and who fails to feel guilty about them.

Doesn't all this sound like Voldemort, though?

After all, Dumbledore specifically says that Voldemort cannot understand love. And Voldie certainly commits antisocial acts and violent acts, and he doesn't seem to show any kind of guilt or remorse.

From what we learn about Voldemort's past in the sixth book, he failed to make friends with anyone in the orphanage he lived in, prefering to terrorise the other kids. He strives for power all through his school days and beyond... but never for friendship.

So, there you have it. I think Voldemort is a psychopath with a large dose of megalomania thrown in for good measure. And woe betide anyone -- supporter or not -- who gets in his way.

Next question: why on Earth would the Death Eaters want to rally around someone like that?

Chris

Perfect question, Chris. I often think that pop-culture villains are portrayed as too powerful and too one-dimensionally evil, at least if they derive much of their strength from an army of followers.

One great thing about the last Harry Potter book was that it discussed what it means to be good, and Harry and Dumbledore were shown as two different types of good people, where Harry was ultimately the best. He was the best of them because of his humility, of his ability to always think of others as just as valuable as himself, and of his ability to say no to absolute power. Because, you know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But Rowling did not discuss the power and the lure of the evil leader at all. Why did the Death Eaters rally around Voldemort? She did not explain. Personally I think that if you meet this kind of simplification about "villains" in too many pop culture tales, it may affect your ability to think and reason adversely. It may, for example, lead you to expect that if your own country is going invade another country to deposit its supremely evil leader, then the majority of the population of that country will happily embrace you as their liberator, while the minority of the people, who supported the evil leader, will just mysteriously disappear along with their satanic "king". Because it always happens that way in stories and movies, so why shouldn't it be like that in real life, too?

I think it would be a good thing it we stopped simplifying the bad guys so much. They've got to have a few more things going for them than just that they are bad. And defeating the supporters of real-life baddies may require a little more than just killing their leader.

Ann

From Book 6, Chapter "A Sluggish Memory"

I think Jo shows some of the reasons for joining Voldemort in this quote. Once they had joined, there was no way out. Some of them stay out of fear (Wormtail).some are simply sycophants and some are cruel, insane persons themselves (Bellatrix Lestrange).

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

Hurray! a place to post now that I've emerged from my HP induced fanfic break!

Overall, I liked it very much, but cannot get past Fred's death. Why JK? WHY? I didn't see it advancing the plot, proving a point or anything. Perhaps that is because the twins are far and away my favorite characters in there, it just seemed gratuitous.

Also, I didn't love the epilogue--not as well-written as the rest, but rather cliched and silly. We needed to have at least one more paragraph about *why* our favorite character ever would choose Ginny to be his wife. I understand how/why he loves Ron (book 4's "most precious" thing), but not about why he feels for the sister--is it just to stay close to Ron? It read taht way to me.

And, did anyone else see shades of CS Lewis in Harry's sacrificial scene? Didn't make me love it less, I was quite moved.
Not my favorite of the books but still a mostly satisfying read.

Thanks, Laura. So... Harry doesn't die. Got it. (Didn't understand a word of the rest of the explanation, however - but that seems to be par for the course when I look at anything to do with Harry Potter.)

Anyway, I feel much better now that I got the answer to that question. I tend to have a cat-curiosity complex. So... Now that my curiosity is satisfied, I can get on with life

ML

JKR gave an interview recently, parts of which were shown on the Today show last week. She gave some details that had not been included in the epilogue. Being told is not the same as reading it, of course, but if you are interested...

R
E
A
D

A
N
D

F
I
N
D

O
U
T

She said that initially the epilogue was much more detailed, but it was necessary to edit it down. So it sounds like there was quite a bit of tweaking going on. She also mentioned that for the longest time the last word had indeed been "scar".

Harry and Ron have both become Aurors. Hermione has risen to some high post in the Ministry of Magic. She did not give a name to the Headmaster at Hogwarts, but said only that he/she was new, because McGonagall would be too old by this time.

Some time ago I had heard that she had to make at least a minor change in the epilogue, since one character that was supposed to die in Book 5 actually survived through the whole thing. She revealed that it was Mr. Weasley.

She also mentioned that although she feels that Harry's story is done, she does plan to write an encyclopedia about this world, so more questions will be answered.

After reading this scene, I thought it was the former. In the interview, JKR said that at one point Daniel Radcliffe asked her if he [meaning Harry] was going to die. She answered him, "You get a death scene". That seems to indicate to me that she did write him as dying...temporarily.

Kathy

I just read that JKR did a 90-minute webchat answering some 120,000 questions. I'd be interested in hearing what she had to say. Anyone have an idea where I could find it?

And as for my take on the book? I loved it. The beginning and middle seemed a bit slow to me while they were just wandering around, but the end had me riveted. Most of my thoughts have already been echoed here. But I will say that I really didn't like that in the epilogue practically all the kids were named after characters. Seemed a bit cliched to me.

I do have to say, though. This book will make a pretty fantastic movie if they do it right. With the dragon escape from Gringotts and all the near misses. I could just envision how dramatic the scene could be when Harry finally rips off the cloak to reveal to Voldemort that he did not actually die.

Well, no other thoughts are occuring to me right now, at least no other new thoughts. So any ideas about this webchat?

~Kristen

It's here:

J. K. Rowling\'s post-DH web chat transcript.

Warning. Loads of spoilers!

Thanks!

So I was rather late to the HP craze. I read the first 5 vols while I was overseas some years ago and just read the Half Blood Prince yesterday (oh my goodness the middle was a snooze!) and Deathly Hallows today. I liked the last book the most.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R

Like everyone it is the backstory of Snape that tugged at my heartstrings and made me misty-eyed. Other than that I just wasn't that invested in the characters, they just didn't seem that interesting to me (but that was from book 1 and my own tastes play a part--this is not the type of fiction I'm into). I'm not really that invested to 'ship really.

Part of me kept hoping that the book would undo this Slytherin as bad guys thing and show all of them (or most) standing up against Voldie, but that was not to be (I had such high hopes for Draco and then he turns out to be such a drip). In the end I feel that that was a little developed part so the bit about people sitting together and the epilogue (the whole its not bad to be a Slytherin) seemed kinda lame, it's like a conclusion with not enough evidence. But I did like the action, very good and hard hitting. I think it should make a really great movie.

And just like that half of the background in my post-DH Buffy crossover isn't canon. I had Hermione in an unspecified job that is mostly in the Muggle world, amongst other things.

SPOILER SPACE

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
There have been many villains in this world where you could wonder WHY anyone would rally around them. The main answer is that they share a common goal. Voldemort's main lieutenants all believe in a "pure" society where everyone is of pure magical blood. As I believe someone mentioned, JKR essentially pounded into our heads the comparison with Nazi Germany. In the case of Adolf Hitler, the comparisons with Voldemort were many. He was very charismatic to the point where he convinced the German people that he would lead them to victory over their oppressors.

He spoke of Aryan superiority where anyone else, especially the Jews, were the cause of all their problems. In the Harry Potter world, Aryans became anyone of pure magical ancestry. The Jews were the Mudbloods, who were either persecuted or fled the country.

Like Hitler, Voldemort killed a lot of his own people, mostly out of paranoia. Yet he still had the loyalty of millions all the way to the end.

In the same way that Hitler was not even German (he was Austrian), Voldemort was not a pure blood. It's ironic the the man leading the cause towards magical purity was himself only a half-blood where Tom Riddle, Sr. was a Muggle.

As for my take on the book, it was quite good. I also liked the fact that Snape turned out to be a good guy. I was hoping that he had been acting on Dumbledore's orders to kill him, though I hadn't suspected he was dying from his cursed hand. I had thought he was dying because of the potion he had drunk from the cave where the fake locket was found.

I didn't mind the ending. It was nice to know what would happen in the future.

There were also a number of things that completely perplexed me. I still don't understand Harry's attraction to Ginny. I can understand him not falling for Hermione. He thought of her more as a sister, which is exactly what Emma Watson said about her two co-stars when asked if she could see herself going out with Rupert or Daniel. She said that they were too much like brothers for her to ever consider dating them.

I was actually a Harry/Luna shipper. Harry was basically the only person who was actually Luna's friend. Everyone else mainly supported her because she was Harry's friend. Behind her back, and sometimes even with a slip of the tongue while in her presence, they would call her Loony Lovegood. Luna seemed to be the only one who understood Harry. I figured those two could very well end up together. But alas, it was too much like the Hunchback of Notre Dame where the "weirdo" and the heroine seemed like they fit more together than anyone else, but yet the heroine went off with the handsome hero while Quasimodo looked on with mixed emotions.

I believe Luna ends up married to someone else that doesn't appear in the books.

I could understand the whole thing with disarming being the reason why the Elder Wand switched allegiances. It was a one-of-a-kind, so it didn't happen with all wands. It shared the trait of other wands in that it chose its master. But it was essentially a wand destined for combat, therefore it would go with the stronger opponent.

But here are the things that made no sense. How did Dumbledore beat Grindelwald if having the Elder Wand makes you invincible? I guess it isn't really invincible if it can be beaten. And since Dumbledore was disarmed by Draco, it definitely wasn't very invincible. It was 0-2 in the books.

Second, it makes no sense that Harry could have been killed and then resurrected by choice because his soul was attached to Voldemort's. If Harry was the master of the Elder Wand, how could the Elder Wand kill him in one encounter and then refuse to kill him in the next, rather rebounding the Avada Kadavra and killing Voldemort instead? Huh? Does the wand have ears and thought, "Oh, Harry Potter just said he disarmed my master, Draco, a few weeks ago. I'd better go with him instead." It must have been listening in when Harry was explaining how incompetent Voldemort had been and switched sides on the spot.

If the Elder Wand did end up killing Harry in the forest, wouldn't the Elder Wand change allegiances at that moment to Voldemort? Disarming counts, but killing doesn't? If that's the case, how did the original Perevell brother lose the allegiance of the wand?

From the book: "Naturally, with the Elder Wand as his weapon, he could not fail to win the duel that followed... That very night, another wizard crept upon the oldest brother as he lay, wine-sodden, upon his bed. The thief took the wand and, for good measure, slit the oldest brother's throat."

Just from that, Dumbledore should not have won his duel with Grindelwald and the power of the Elder Wand should have died with the oldest brother since there was no duel or combat involved. It's possible that the power of the Elder Wand did die with the eldest brother and that it had been living on reputation alone. That the Elder Wand was no different from any other wand would explain everything.

I still enjoyed the book greatly, despite these seeming inconsistencies. I would rank it as the best or second best of the seven with only the Order of the Phoenix coming close. I would also put the Half-blood Prince dead last.

One other question: Why is the UK edition (which I picked up in Sweden) 607 pages while the American edition is over 750 pages long? The UK book is smaller in size and doesn't have tiny print. Is the American edition longer or does it just have HUGE print?

It's my understanding that to cut down on page numbers (and thus the end effect of fewer trees being cut down in the long run), the UK/Canadian version of the book utilises more of the page to enable the fewer pages, ie the print goes deeper into the gutters of the page,etc. Also (and I'm not sure if the UK version does this as well), the Canadian books are printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper so they are considered "ancient forest friendly". When you consider the huge numbers of sales this book generates, every little bit helps!

Apparently we're not quite so... enlightened . What my copy says is:

(So far, so good.)

Then:

So, some of the UK edition's materials come from recycled materials... but only some.

Yay, the Canadians!

Chris

I'm not going to say much about the book, save that it wasn't as bad as I expected, and nothing ever became Snivellus in his life like the manner of his leaving it, grovelling before his master like the coward he was -- oh, and letting the Malfoys not only live but reproduce was a travesty of justice far worse than the fate of anyone killed off in the book-long bloodbath.

Now that I've freaked out most people here, what I would like to do is to nail once and for all a pernicious untruth that has been going around for too long. Annette wrote: That is not so! Jo never called H/Hr shippers delusional; in fact, she specifically refused to do so. It was the interviewers (Emerson from Mugglenet.com and Melissa from The Leaky Cauldron) that used the word, and kept coming back to it at various points during the interview -- particularly the former. JKR did not. Check the transcripts of the interview and you'll see. In fact, here's a quote from the first time the subject comes up: And slightly later: So, no "delusional" despite some prompting from the interviewers, especially Emerson, and I'm sure that you won't find Jo using the word anywhere else in that interview. She has to agree with the interviewers that the H/Hr shippers are wrong in their interpretation of her writing, because they were, but she does not use That Word, nor, IMO, does she want to insult them. So I hope that any Pumpkin Pie fans will feel a little better about that, and those leaning towards the Harmonian end of the spectrum can hare off after the true culprit(s) rather than continue to traduce JKR.

Phil

Finally finished the book yesterday. And I've only had it for a week and a half!

Anyway, I was reading the dust jacket and

When JKR was 6 she wrote her first book about a rabbit called "Rabbit". When I was 6, I wrote my first - and admittedly only - book about a rabbit called (Ridley Rock) Rabbit.

Does this mean I'm going to be a multi-gajillionaire? Ooh, I do hope so!

Loved Deathly Hallows btw.

Resurrecting this thread to say...

I took it to mean that the Elder Wand killed the piece of Voldemort in Harry... but it couldn't kill Harry himself.

See ya,
AnnaBtG.