Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows discussion ***SPOILERS!!!***

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Teta040 said:
Butterscotch....see my above post, I suggested a way David Thewlis could play in film 7....comic relief and then tragedy.

Good idea!

Hey look at this! JKR tells what she deleted from the epilogue, Harry's job and other stuff. Sounds like she's got a lot of ideas for a sequel series, and I wouldn't rule out she might do it in years to come.

"What happens next"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/
 
^ Great link, though I hope there isn't a sequel series - it's a story of adolescence and I personally don't want to know too much of Harry et al as adults. Keep them children/adolescents in my mind. I love JK's quote from the above link:

“I’m dealing with a level of obsession in some of my fans that will not rest until they know the middle names of Harry’s great-great-grandparents,” she said.

:lol: A bit like this thread, really! (I mean that in a good way; I'm one of her 'obsessives' afterall!)
 
Obsessives? As of this month, count me guilty. 'Ear, 'ear!

Perfect...Hermione has Amelia Bones's job.....I hope she becomes Chief Witch of the Wizengamot someday (ie Chief Justice of the Wizarding Supreme Court)...

And Luna! OMG....SO perfect. The Steve Irwin of the Wizarding world--LOL!:wink: If the Wizarding world had TV, I could just see her doing a TV show, with Hagrid as her assistant. "This weeks' episode: wrestling the baby Blast-ended skrewt" or whatever. Hagrid telling her to put on protective gloves and she says (dreamy voice) "Gloves? Daddy never used gloves" and diving right in....or discovering a new species of dragon, an egg hatches and the baby dragon spits out purple fire, Luna's hair catches on fire and she says (dreamy voice) "Wow! I never saw purple fire before!" before charming it out....I can just imagine Evanna Lynch doing this in a film, smash cut to Neville watching the TV at Hogwarts and freaking out, " I TOLD her not to do this!" Sending his Patronus to yell at her, and then she sends hers back to inform him "(no more dreamy voice) "Neville, darling, if you contest me one more time, when I get back, you will sleep on the couch for a week." The marriage of Neville and Luna could be a sitcom all in itself, I wish I knew how to do this stuff on the Internet, I'd be writing one right now.........choking on my iced tea, must stop....no more books, and thus, no more movies! DANGIT!:madspit:

MUST get to bed.....I am overtired, can't you tell, but I just finished another chunk of the book and can't the picture of Hermione washing Ron's underwear out of my head....from this to Death Eaters 20 pgs later........Jo, you are a genius.
 
Last edited:
I predicted both Harry and LV would die, and that he mysterious locket from OOTP was a Horcrux, and that Snape loved Lilly.

LV really took off in this book, more deaths than I expected but "two main characters die" comment was overhyped. You'd think she took out two members of the trio, or Hagrid.

Mostly very satisfying book, I only would take out Harry coming back to life and LV and Harry really taking each other out (but I guess readers would kill JK Rowling, then) and the sappy "19 years later" epilogue, and I think it's bad that we only got to hear about the big four in the end. All the questions didn't get answered but there is the encyclopedia coming...

Parts of the book with most impact for me: Dobby's death, the doe Patronus, Harry's walk to the Forrest before LV AKs him and the DD-Harry talk. (Wizard's Heaven ? Out of body, near-death experience ?) Also, loved the actual Deathly Hallows idea.

I think the no. 1 question will be what was the figure behind DD and Harry ? I think it's Voldemort (since the book states "Tom Riddle" fell down on the ground) caught between life and death for all eternity.
 
Varitek said:
I hope Jo was indeed showing us somebody who wanted to do something good, but for a faulty or wrong reason. I can’t believe Snape's love was supposed to be read as good and heroic.

Well, I can't really see how anyone could think that JKR intended to show Snape's love as good and heroic. I mean, take the scene where Snape comes to Dumbledore with the warning that Voldemort was going after Potters and the way JKR wrote Dumbledore's reaction. The fact that Snape loved Lily and put his life at risk by going behind his master's back did not prevent Dumbledore from saying, with contempt, that Snape disgusted him. JKR very much highlighted the fact that Snape didn't give a damn about Lily's husband and child getting killed, so I don't think you could ever accuse her of looking at Snape's feelings through rose-tinted glasses.

I gotta say, though I was sure that Snape was going to end up on the good side, I was wondering how on earth it was going to square with the fact that JKR, judging from the various interviews, seemed to be so thoroughly apalled by him. I think in the end it was resolved neatly - she left Snape an extremely grey-area character, while also acknowledging his undeniable courage and the important role he played in bringing down Voldemort.
 
Teta040 said:

Regarding the Patronus--you think that the only reason Snape had Lily's doe Patronus is b/c of his all consuming, unhealthy obsession. I happen to think that no "good" (ie form of a beautiful animal) Patronus can come from a negative emotion. Remember a Patronus is generated by a person's most powerful happy memory. So say, if an ax murderer cast a Patronus, if his happiest memory was the murder he committed/i.e. a revenge he took upon somebody, he'd be able to get, say, a sable antelope? I think that the type of Patronus is pre-determined by the nature of the memory that generates it. If Snape's "love" is warped and unwholsome, there's no way he would have her Patronus. He'd have a lizard or a scorpion or something. I can't imagine a Death Eater with, say, a rabbit Patronus, like Luna's.....I know this is getting REALLY TECHNICAL but I just have this gut feeling that with such a powerful spell, there'd be rules and laws. I wish I could ask Jo this! If Snape's "obsession" began at Hogwarts than I see a totally different Patronus. But it began in his childhood, remained the only good thing in his otherwise awful life, and anyway, I happen to think that just as people's Patronuses chage when thet fall in love, they'd change when a person changes for the worse. Snape began with and until the day he dies had the same one. So whatever he became, sorry, I think that in this regard, he never changed....

I disagree. The technique of casting the Patronus spell involves summoning a happy memory (and it doesn't always have to be the same one; Harry uses many different ones, and sometimes just hte thought of people he loves). The form of the Patronus itself is independent of happy memories, it is something innate about the person's soul that connects them to that animal - kind of like daemons in the His Dark Materials trilogy. When something in their soul changes, the Patronus can change; this includes falling in love. Snape's Patronus took the form of Lily's, a beautiful animal. But it wasn't because something about Snape enabled him to cast a beautiful animal; I bet without her his Patronus would have been a bat (haha!). It was Lily herself, the fact that Lily could be the beautiful animal, that enabled him to cast the Doe. This doesn't have anything to do with how positive or negative his love for her was - and in my growing essay, I conclude that his love was abusive. I'm excited to post it on Leaky and get criticism - I love a good argument so long as it is respectful and well reasoned by all.

As for a 10 year old stalking - it wasn't full fledged stalking, but he'd clearly been spying on her for ages, and what was his example of loving interpersonal relations? His abusive father. It's not entirely Snape's fault after all, I'm not saying it is, but he still bears the brunt of the responsibitlity for his choices and actions and character. I'll link my essay if it ever gets published for more on this :) and if it doesn't get published I guess I might as well post it here.

Also, I don't think Lily ever had sexual relations with Snape. He may have wanted it, but she was waaaay too attractive for him. The excuses were just about being friends wtih him. Again, like with the naked eden clothing scene, I think you're reading way too much into the flower - Lily was just a 9 year old having fun. It was Snape that picked that moment to pop out of the bushes after however long he'd been spying on her.
 
Dalton said:
Here's a question:

How in the world did Neville end up with the Gryffindor sword? Didn't the goblin have it?

He pulled it out of the sorting hat, just as Harry did in the Chamber of Secrets.


Thanks Maycocksean for the compliment!
 
Dalton said:
Here's a question:

How in the world did Neville end up with the Gryffindor sword? Didn't the goblin have it?
yeah, like varitek said. remember, "only a true gryffindor could have pulled it out of the hat"
=)
 
Varitek...I didn't say she had a relationship with Snape! (That indeed would be unthinkable.....) really, you should go back and read it more thoroughly...There was a part in there where I know I said that the flower imagery wasn't a suggestion of their PRESENT mental state (God forbid!) but Jo giving a visual allegory of their future puberty, and an allusion to what that MIGHT have blossomed had things gone another way, on many fronts. I was just stating that there was some kind of (initial) attraction of some sort, a childish attraction, some kind of phsycological thing going on that IF he were more presentable both physically and in his ways, it could have ripened at a later date into something else. Should I just put a disclaimer in my posts that says "This is what happened, but JKR likes to screw around with our minds, so she drops that kind of little liguistic bombshell and watches the debris fly"? There are SO many shades of gray here and you seem to be reveling in black and white. Some things in the HP saga are black and white (I could list all the moral ones you do, but nobody by the end is pure.)

As to reading too much into possible sexual imager--or at least suggesting that it does not exist-- I don't think I am. This stuff is right out there in black and white, esp things like the flower, and I'll be waiting for the scholarly journal article someday that picks up on it. It's just as clear as the sensual imagery in the origional 18th-century version of Beauty and the Beast. (forgot the author's name--her name is something like 6 words long. )Have you read the origional version of Beauty and the Beast? Cocteau hints at some of this stuff in his film but even the film--with a few notable exceptions-- is considerably toned down. I'm not being pretentious--I'm not the one who's going to be writing this stuff. (and good luck on your article BTW.)

As for Patronuses--you state that "it is something innate in that person's soul that determines the Patronus". Like the deamons in the HDM series. I have read HDM and know what you mean. Though I think there are other influences to Jo's creating the Patronus..such as Native American spirit guardian lore--where, for some tribes, the honor was accorded to some in the tribe that they had the privalege of choosing their guardian upon their adult naming day if their deeds merited it,just as they chose a new name,or were accorded one---- and, more recently, Jean Auel's "Earth's Children" series (the Ayla and Jondalar books, where everyone has an animal totem.) Exactly! That is what I was saying....although I merely stated it was the nature of the memory. I should have added that the person's soul interacts with the memory too, but thought that the soul but was too bovious. This in my mind would determne the existence of the doe Patronus on his part.....You think that this would preclude SNape from sharing her Patronus; I see it as the opposite.

(I can't believe that New Line had the guts to try to make HDM into a film...those books are downright blasphemous, I read them several times to get over my shock and if anything it has only grown with time. Lyra's farewell tearjerking speech to--I'll call him James b/c I forget his name--about her love for him is like sickly-sweet poison. Never was anything so verbally lovely written in service of such a blasphemous cause. And I KNOW about the whole "Republic of Heaven"crap. And no, I am NOT Catholic, and glad I'm not. For me, HDM is the anti-LOTR, the modernist blast from the current perpetually erupting geyser of cynicism and despair. Good luck indeed explaining "dust", New Line. And making Lyra a couple of yrs younger won't help. And I knowwhat you'llsay, Varitek, "you're not open-minded enough, there are several layers in that story, etc" but I have read the series at least 10 times and it all seems pretty clear to me. Anti-Catholic or mainstream religion, I can see that--but anti God? When the angels, who are named, are the bad guys, that says enough for me. And there aren't any LOTR-like shades of gray. Lyra has far fewer flaws than Frodo--or Harry. Her name says it all. Of course New Line will take the angels out of the film, anyway.

As to your essay, good luck! If I had the time to get into an argument with you on Leaky I would--but I am very busy and trying to finish the book also. Like I said, you'll get many rebuttals more harsh than mine if it gets published, b/c there are some outright Snape worshipers out there, those for whom he is redeemed and at the end good. I didn't think he was, and like I said, for me, the beautiful imagery associated, subconsciously, with him iin Book 7 s Jo's moving suggestion of what could have been. There will be many more than I who love the character, but I don't hold him up as a "hero" in the traditional sense. I don't...I am merely intruiged and moved by him.

Oh..and how is the office situation BTW? What do you think of our dear Governor and Bruno? PATHETIC isn't it? (I'm in Albany, yep, 2 1/2 hrs north of you...mwahahaha:))
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
epilogue, and I think it's bad that we only got to hear about the big four in the end. All the questions didn't get answered but there is the encyclopedia coming...


You must have missed the link. Here's the whole story she tells of what she left out and why:

Finished ‘Potter’? Rowling tells what happens next

Exclusive: Author gives details on events after the book’s final epilogue

Spoiler alert: This story reveals some key plot points in the final Harry Potter book. So if you've haven't finished the book, J.K. Rowling asks that you not read this story.

If you found the epilogue of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” rather vague, then J.K. Rowling achieved her goal.

The author was shooting for “nebulous,” something “poetic.” She wanted the readers to feel as if they were looking at Platform 9¾ through the mist, unable to make out exactly who was there and who was not.

“I do, of course, have that information for you, should you require it,” she told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira rather coyly in her first interview since fans got their hands on the final book.
Ummm … yes, please!

Rowling said her original epilogue was “a lot more detailed,” including the name of every child born to the Weasley clan in the past 19 years. (Victoire, who was snogging Teddy — Lupin and Tonks’ son — is Bill and Fleur’s eldest.)

“But it didn’t work very well as a piece of writing,” Rowling said. “It felt very much that I had crowbarred in every bit of information I could … In a novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything.”

But now that the seventh and final novel is in the hands of her adoring public, Rowling no longer has to hold back any information about Harry Potter from her fans. And when 14 fans crowded around her in Edinburgh Castle in Scotland earlier this week as part of TODAY’s interview, Rowling was more than willing to share her thoughts about what Harry and his friends are up to now.

Harry, Ron and Hermione
We know that Harry marries Ginny and has three kids, essentially, as Rowling explains, creating the family and the peace and calm he never had as a child.

As for his occupation, Harry, along with Ron, is working at the Auror Department at the Ministry of Magic. After all these years, Harry is now the department head.

“Harry and Ron utterly revolutionized the Auror Department,” Rowling said. “They are now the experts. It doesn’t matter how old they are or what else they’ve done.”

Meanwhile, Hermione, Ron’s wife, is “pretty high up” in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, despite laughing at the idea of becoming a lawyer in “Deathly Hallows.”

“I would imagine that her brainpower and her knowledge of how the Dark Arts operate would really give her a sound grounding,” Rowling said.

Harry, Ron and Hermione don’t join the same Ministry of Magic they had been at odds with for years; they revolutionize it and the ministry evolves into a “really good place to be.”

“They made a new world,” Rowling said.

The wizarding naturalist
Luna Lovegood, the eccentric Ravenclaw who was fascinated with Crumple-Horned Snorkacks and Umgubular Slashkilters, continues to march to the beat of her own drum.

“I think that Luna is now traveling the world looking for various mad creatures,” Rowling said. “She’s a naturalist, whatever the wizarding equivalent of that is.”

Luna comes to see the truth about her father, eventually acknowledging there are some creatures that don’t exist.

“But I do think that she’s so open-minded and just an incredible person that she probably would be uncovering things that no one’s ever seen before,” Rowling said.

Luna and Neville Longbottom?
It’s possible Luna has also found love with another member of the D.A.

When she was first asked about the possibility of Luna hooking up with Neville Longbottom several years ago, Rowling’s response was “Definitely not.” But as time passed and she watched her characters mature, Rowling started to “feel a bit of a pull” between the unlikely pair.

Ultimately, Rowling left the question of their relationship open at the end of the book because doing otherwise “felt too neat.”

Mr. and Mrs. Longbottom: “The damage is done.”

There is no chance, however, that Neville’s parents, who were tortured into madness by Bellatrix Lestrange, ever left St. Mungo’s Hospital for Magical Maladies.

“I know people really wanted some hope for that, and I can quite see why because, in a way, what happens to Neville’s parents is even worse than what happened to Harry’s parents,” Rowling said. “The damage that is done, in some cases with very dark magic, is done permanently.”
Photos by Andrew Kandel for TODAYshow.com

Rowling said Neville finds happiness in his grandmother’s acceptance of him as a gifted wizard and as the new herbology professor at Hogwarts.

The fate of Hogwarts
Nineteen years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the school for witchcraft and wizardry is led by an entirely new headmaster (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”) as well as a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. That position is now as safe as the other teaching posts at Hogwarts, since Voldemort’s death broke the jinx that kept a Defense Against the Dark Arts professor from remaining for more than a year.

While Rowling didn’t clarify whether Harry, Ron and Hermione ever return to school to finish their seventh year, she did say she could see Harry popping up every now and again to give the “odd talk” on Defense Against the Dark Arts.

More details to come?

Rowling said she may eventually reveal more details in a Harry Potter encyclopedia, but even then, it will never be enough to satisfy the most ardent of her fans.

“I’m dealing with a level of obsession in some of my fans that will not rest until they know the middle names of Harry’s great-great-grandparents,” she said. Not that she’s discouraging the Potter devotion!

“I love it,” she said. “I’m all for that.”
 
I have 2 questions for fans who know more than me:

1. Are the witches and wizards in HP immortal, like in Bewitched, living to be hundreds of years old, or do they just have normal life spans like muggles?

2. Can Voldemort come back? You see many characters come back as ghosts, can he? Or is it like Star Wars, only the good ones can come back as ghosts and the evil ones are destroyed?
 
I loved it, I thought for sure it would disappoint me a little no matter how it ended, but it really exceeded my expectations. I especially liked how she portrayed Snape...if he was either pure evil or a hero, which I figured were the two options, I would've been disappointed. I thought it was brilliant that he was significant in helping Harry, wasn't completely evil, but was just sort of a warped, pitiful person that you feel a little bit sorry for. The Harry-Voldemort resolution was pretty awesome too, the way that his accepting he would have to die ended up saving him in the parallel to his mother's sacrifice. Of course sometimes it seems a bit like magical laws and loopholes and shit sort of appear as convenient, but whatever, it's her magical world and it was a nice moral anyway.

could've done without the epilogue but i understand the need for it.

overall I liked it a lot more than I expected to (even though I'm a fan).
:up:
 
Butterscotch said:
I have 2 questions for fans who know more than me:

1. Are the witches and wizards in HP immortal, like in Bewitched, living to be hundreds of years old, or do they just have normal life spans like muggles?

2. Can Voldemort come back? You see many characters come back as ghosts, can he? Or is it like Star Wars, only the good ones can come back as ghosts and the evil ones are destroyed?

1. not immortal, just a longer life span

2. he's dead and he's not coming back. I think its a stretch to say he could come back as a ghost because his soul was destroyed. if his soul is destroyed how could he have a ghost, it would just be nothing. that might not be true, but for someone like voldemort I would guess he'd want a ghost, so thats why I think he can't have one.
 
oh, and Varitek, one last thought. Why does Harry name one of his children--the one who looks just like him, right down to the eyes--after Snape, and tell him the "bravest man" line. JK can go on TV and argue all she wants, but in the book, she has Harry performing the ultimate act of forgiveness, and she can't go back and change her own "contradictory testimony" so to speak. What kind of message is she trying to send?

She has Harry, at least, honoring him in a way, one that he did not merit, and which the outright Snape haters no doubt were aghast at when they read the Epilogue. What was Harry doing? Was he really so soft-minded and niave? After all, he suffered more than any from the abuse of Snape, and if he of all people had the capacitiy to forgive....I too had the initial reaction of "one act of heroism does not cancel out 7 yrs of abuse" , but Jo has not addressed this issue, so I have to think that she, like me, is of conflciting minds.

And Dumbledore's initial reaction of "disgust" was tempered over time, to the point where he later said, "sometimes I think we sort too soon", etc. Does that mean he changed his mind ? Absolutely not. But it shows that Dumbledore at least had come to the conclusion that he was making sicere efforts at redemption...
 
Last edited:
I'm Ready said:


1. not immortal, just a longer life span

2. he's dead and he's not coming back. I think its a stretch to say he could come back as a ghost because his soul was destroyed. if his soul is destroyed how could he have a ghost, it would just be nothing. that might not be true, but for someone like voldemort I would guess he'd want a ghost, so thats why I think he can't have one.

Thank you!
 
Teta040 said:
oh, and Varitek, one last thought. Why does Harry name one of his children--the one who looks just like him, right down to the eyes--after Snape, and tell him the "bravest man" line. JK can go on TV and argue all she wants, but in the book, she has Harry performing the ultimate act of forgiveness, and she can't go back and change her own "contradictory testimony" so to speak. What kind of message is she trying to send?

She has Harry, at least, honoring him in a way, one that he did not merit, and which the outright Snape haters no doubt were aghast at when they read the Epilogue. What was Harry doing? Was he really so soft-minded and niave? After all, he suffered more than any from the abuse of Snape, and if he of all people had the capacitiy to forgive....I too had the initial reaction of "one act of heroism does not cancel out 7 yrs of abuse" , but Jo has not addressed this issue, so I have to think that she, like me, is of conflciting minds.


I liked that part about the "bravest man I ever knew", despite the otherwise sappy epilogue. To me Snape is the real, underrated hero of the books.
 
Teta040 said:
oh, and Varitek, one last thought. Why does Harry name one of his children--the one who looks just like him, right down to the eyes--after Snape, and tell him the "bravest man" line. JK can go on TV and argue all she wants, but in the book, she has Harry performing the ultimate act of forgiveness, and she can't go back and change her own "contradictory testimony" so to speak. What kind of message is she trying to send?

i think it's cuz Albus Severus was the only one of his 3 kids that had Lily's eyes, so thus it was only fitting for his middle name to be Severus. could you imagine if his eldest son was James Severus? HAHAHAH James and Snape hated eachother.
i think harry has come to understand that even though Snape probably hated harry, it doesnt' erase the fact that all the stuff he did really did truly help Harry to defeat Voldy.
 
I'm kind of torn on Harry going to work for the Ministry of Magic.

On the one hand, I can see that's obviously where his greatest talent lies, as an Auror, and that rather than ignore the system that failed him, he takes a position there to try and change "the system" and does eventually (and rather conveniently and too neatly) change it.

But still I have that nagging irritation that not once in all his dealings with the Ministry, did it ever come through for him (and I'm talking about even BEFORE it was taken over by Voldemort). And it still continued to employ people like Umbridge. Of course, it also employed Mr. Weasley, as well. And I just wonder if a huge governmental entity and bureauocracy, like the Ministry, could really change so drastically in under 19 years because of 3 people.

My first choice for his career would be as a Seeker on a professional Quidditch team. Aside from being an Auror, I think playing Seeker is his second greatest skill. Next, I would rather he take up the DADA position at Hogwarts. Also, this would again illustrate the complete difference between Harry and Voldemort because Harry would be able to take on and accomplish what Voldemort wanted to and never could.

Maybe it's just me, but working for the corrupt Ministry just makes my skin crawl.
 
Last edited:
FitzChivalry said:

My first choice for his career would be as a Seeker on a professional Quidditch team. Aside from being an Auror, I think playing Seeker is his second greatest skill. Next, I would rather he take up the DADA position at Hogwarts. Also, this would again illustrate the complete difference between Harry and Voldemort because Harry would be able to take on and accomplish what Voldemort wanted to and never could.
hahahah omg that is so interesting. i totally agree.
everytime in the book when something was falling or during a quidditch game, i just knew in my heart harry would end up catching it. talk about character development, JK rowling is a master at it. she's instilled in my head this confidence in harry's skills, as well as a dislike for Rita Skeeter to know that everything she said must be taken with a few grains of salt. when i was reading about her intentions to write a book about Dumbledore, my heart was already defending Dumbledore for all the things she was about to say about his past, hahaha.h
 
I agree with most that was said already:

Snape/Dumbledore stories were pretty good
The epilogue was lame
Lupid and Tonks shouldn't have gone, well at least Tonks.

2 other things though:

Kingsley Shacklebolt is probably the biggest badass in the entire series, does he ever mess up? Answer: no.

And what did resurrecting James, Lily, Lupin, and Sirius do at the end? Close to nothing? I thought I missed something there.
 
I read pretty fast, so I very likely missed something important, but my impression was that it brought their spirits to Harry, they weren't resurrected.

They gave Harry the strength to face what he had to do, to not fear death.
 
Wow. I've only now had the time to go through and read most of the long stuff in this thread. Crazy! There's so much I want to address, respond to, and bring up, but I know I'm going to forget 2/3 of it. I also read pretty quickly and am starting a slower re-read because I know I'd like a deeper understanding of a few things. Anyway, here goes:

1). King's Cross/Harry's "death" scene -- Someone had addressed Harry's nakedness in the scene. I felt that it was not fully a Garden of Eden feel, but more just that he was naked because his soul/mind had traveled to wherever he was, which was a place of rawness and possibility, a place where any new beginning could be made. This, of course, was when the reader initially thinks that Harry has died and is in some kind of heaven/limbo/etc. realm. Which brings to mind two big questions: 1). Did Harry die and come back, or only get to the brink of death and choose not to fully go over?...and....2). Where exactly did this scene take place? I'm still deciding my answer to both these questions, and I love how JKR wrote this chapter so that it could be interpreted in so many ways. Dumbledore tells Harry that they are in his own mind, that it's Harry's "show." This would make sense, as Harry has control over what happens---his clothes, seeing that it's King's Cross, etc.---all except for the baby (which I'll get to in a bit). IF it is Harry's mind, that lends itself to the concept that Harry didn't fully die, but is only half-dead, and makes the choice not to allow himself to die. The figure of Dumbledore and all that he tells Harry would thus have to be a representation of things that Harry already knows---that it's just Harry's mind creating the figure, but it's telling him things he's already worked out. This could be what JKR intends, as Dumbledore even tells Harry that Harry knows the things he wants DD to tell him. But I find the other option so much more interesting-----What if Harry HAS died? That would make the place he's in either a heaven or limbo-like place. Thus, he can't control everything--he can't control the baby or what happens to it. Yet he can control some things, and DD tells him that they're in his mind----thus raising a huge, deep concept of heaven and hereafter being some sort of realm of consciousness. I can't put my thoughts on this into words, but as someone who believes that we are all connected by some greater spark/energy/force/etc., I find this notion intriguing. In the end, I do think that Harry only went to the brink of death---when he fights LV, he talks about how he didn't die, but had intended to---but I find the idea of him actually dying, coming back, and all the philosophical stuff that entails so much more interesting.

The idea of Harry dying for others---wow. Harry even says to Voldemort something of how he intended to die to protect everyone else---and it worked---LV's spells couldn't kill anyone after Harry "died." I agree with others who don't think that JKR intended to have a specifically Christian take here---other mythologies have similar characters who die for others, some of whom return. All the same, it's a HUGE image, and it makes Harry this massively strong, impressive character. (even Christ had misgivings at his death, asking "Why, Father, have you forsaken me?") I was extraordinarily impressed with the leaps and bounds Harry's character had made once he accepted that he must die. The 'into the forest again' chapter was heartwrenching, as he came to grips with the idea. But when he fights LV, he has such steadfast, rock-solid confidence and strength....he reminded me of Aragorn in LOTR once he accepts that he must be King. Very cool.

The baby. I think that it's the part of Voldemort's soul that was in Harry and is dying. I think that makes the most sense, plus there's the curious fact that it's a baby---just as Harry was when that part of the soul entered him. There are three things, though, that are odd. 1). Why couldn't Dumbledore tell Harry what it was? If it was the part of LV's soul, it wouldn't have been an issue for DD to tell Harry what it was. My answer is that if the scene is in Harry's mind, and the DD there is a figment of Harry's imagination telling him only what Harry already knows---then DD can't tell Harry that it's the dying part of LV's soul.....Harry initially doesn't even know where he his, he thinks he may be dead, etc...he has no reason yet to think that the baby is LV's bit of soul...thus, the figment of his own imagination can't tell him something that he doesn't know. The figure of DD has to help Harry realize enough information that he can recognize what the baby is. JKR doesn't come out and say what it is---you have to come to understand the whole situation just as Harry does. 2). Why is the baby trapped under a chair? I have no idea. 3). When Harry fights LV, he tells him to feel remorse because he has seen what LV would otherwise become. What does this mean? Does he mean the baby? If so, does that make the baby something else? I need to go back and read all the stuff about remorse, etc., from earlier in the book, but I think that I have this one half-cracked. Harry has seen the baby, LV's soul, dying. He has seen and come to grips with the possibility of his OWN death. Thus, Harry has seen what LV would become without remorse---he has seen "dead." Still, I need to read the remorse bits again....
 
2). The epilogue -- I don't think it's nearly as bad as some people do. Actually, I don't quite see why people think it's bad. It needs to be "neat." If Harry lives, would you really not expect him to end up with Ginny? And Ron & Hermione---that's been obvious since the second or third book. Basically, because Harry lived, the epilogue pretty much needs to be what it is. If you didn't want Harry to live, then I'd imagine you would have a problem with much more than just the epilogue, so I don't see why one would focus only on that.

Even the series that some people argue is better than HP---Lord of the Rings---has a cheesy, "neat" wrap-up ending. (In fact, it's much worse, as it has things that pretty much destroy character images---i.e., Eowyn marrying Faramir...there goes her butch soldier-girlness).

The epilogue is more than just a wrap-up and loose-end-tying chapter. It gives Harry what he's always wanted, what he's longed for throughout the entire 7-book series: a loving family. That's the point of the epilogue, and that's why it's a perfect end to the books.






More will come in spurts later....:wink:
 
Utoo said:
2). The epilogue -- I don't think it's nearly as bad as some people do. Actually, I don't quite see why people think it's bad. It needs to be "neat." If Harry lives, would you really not expect him to end up with Ginny? And Ron & Hermione---that's been obvious since the second or third book. Basically, because Harry lived, the epilogue pretty much needs to be what it is. If you didn't want Harry to live, then I'd imagine you would have a problem with much more than just the epilogue, so I don't see why one would focus only on that.

Even the series that some people argue is better than HP---Lord of the Rings---has a cheesy, "neat" wrap-up ending. (In fact, it's much worse, as it has things that pretty much destroy character images---i.e., Eowyn marrying Faramir...there goes her butch soldier-girlness).

The epilogue is more than just a wrap-up and loose-end-tying chapter. It gives Harry what he's always wanted, what he's longed for throughout the entire 7-book series: a loving family. That's the point of the epilogue, and that's why it's a perfect end to the books.






More will come in spurts later....:wink:

It's not that it was that lam, but it didn't tell you what happened to everyone. I want to know what happened to the Weasleys, Hogwarts, the Ministry, former Death Eaters, etc...

I loved Mama Weasley's Ellen Ripley moment against Bellatrix, that was badass.
 
I thought she was so opposed to sequels to Book 7 that the epilogue would be much more detailed. She left the door completely open now.
 
Back
Top Bottom