Post Deathly Hollows discussion - MASSIVE SPOILERS - Read only when finished!

[Guest]

[blackcat20]

Wow. Talk about relief! I guess in a way, the whole "does he live or die" was right-he did both. I felt it coming; I was shocked when I realised he was going to sacrifice himself, but I twigged at some point that it would work in his favour.

I dont have too much to add at this point that is insightful; I think I need to let it all sink in. But all in all, Im glad with they way it wrapped up...but the epilogue has opened up a can of worms and I want to know more!

[Sharon]

I can't believe I have read the last HP book, it certainly doesn't feel like that.  I thought the book was brilliant and whilst people died whom I wanted to live I think the ending was just right.  I do wish we knew what happened to everyone but then it really would have been LOTR all over again.

Like most people I need to re-read HBP and then this one again - the whole wandlore bit has me deeply confused.  I am totally lost by that last duel and who the Elder wand had an allegiance to.

The one thing I am happy about is that Dumbledore was not a perfect goodie.  After GOF I was starting to have my doubts about him and this book does confirm he was using people to fulfil his plans, albeit for the greater good.  And who would have thought Aberforth would play such a huge part  . 

[Trey]

I really dont know what to say...it was such a great book  The best book so far (and I thought nothing would overtake my love for POA) it was pure genius!!!

Pros:
The ending I wanted with Harry alive
Hermy, Ron, Ginny, Neville, Luna and *sobs* most of the weasley gang surviving
Snape being un-evil...I knew it 

Cons:
The deaths of so many loved characters *pauses for a minutes silence*
A tad confusing with all the wand lore, I thought JK should have touched on this in HBP to make things easier reading this one

I really liked it, but the 'nineteen years later' could have been a whole chapter in itself and I really NEEDED to know more...you kind of feel like you are left half hanging to know what everyone else is up to.

I need to read it again.......right now 

[Sharon]

I really liked it, but the 'nineteen years later' could have been a whole chapter in itself and I really NEEDED to know more...you kind of feel like you are left half hanging to know what everyone else is up to.

I am not sure how other countries versions were printed but in the UK book the last line was at the very bottom of the page.  I genuinely turned the page expecting a few more pages and was gutted it was over 

[Trey]

Yes it was printed the same here and I did EXACTLY the same thing...

That JK is evil leaving us like that 

[Misty]

The wand lore was a bit confusing, but what I got out of it was that when you defeat someone, their wand has allegiance to you, so the elder wand would not kill Harry as he had disarmed Draco, who disarmed Dumbledore.  Voldemort thought allegiance went to Snape, as he killed DD, but DD was already disarmed, so allegiance had already shifted to his disarmer.  I think this might also refer to the graveyard scene where the wands did the same thing.  It was not about having brother wands, but about Harry defeating Voldemort at Privet Drive.  Voldemort's wand recognized Harry as its new master since Harry defeated Voldemort at their last "duel", even though he was an unarmed baby, Voldemort "lost" to him.  That's what I got out of it, I could be waaay off!  Anyone else have thoughts?

[pinksamstar]

ive just finished also im a bit disappointed though...thought there may be a little more about Petunia..i liked the pensieve tale, but the way she and dudley acted didnt have a closing for me....

and Draco...there was too much of a build up in hbp for him to barely do anything..I loved it dont get me wrong! and cried like a twerp over fred, tonks and lupin...i guess im feeling a little sad now... i knew snape was good! hmpff

[Geek Boy]

and Draco...there was too much of a build up in hbp for him to barely do anything

Agreed - very odd.  Maybe the whole bit with Dumbledore at the end of HBP took it out of him, the little lamb...

[blackcat20]

I had a discussion with an academic in my department, over morning tea this morning...and Im after everyones opinion.

He feels that, if Harry has the protection of his mother, and therefore so does Voldemort (in his blood), and that is what prevents Voldemort from killing Harry the first time (when he is an infant)....how is he able to "kill" him the second time, particularly given he is using "Harry's" wand...and then, how is voldemort able to be finally killed if he too still has Lily's protection....

It made sense to me when I read it, but the more I think about it (and discuss it with the academic) the more Im not so sure. Obviously harry didnt die when voldemort tried to kill him in the forest; was Nagini the link that held them both to life, or was it becuase Harry is the master of death, and therefore had a choice to go back or to move on...

Im off to lunch/seminar, but Im interested to see other peoples thoughts when i get back...

[ferdinand_the_yak]

I thought that Voldemort couldn't kill him because the wand did not work properly for him, especially against its true master (Harry). Most likely though, I think it was because of the connection between Harry and Voldemort. There was still an intact horcrux (Nagini) that bound Harry to the living world.

Let me get this straight... Harry was definitely a horcrux according to Dumbledore. So that meant there WERE 7 horcruxes albeit accidentally.

[blackcat20]

My theory is that the wand wont work properly against Harry due to ownership; but worked enough to "kill" him so that the horcrux in Harry was destroyed. When they dueled, Voldemort again tried to kill him, but the curse rebounded, either due to Harry's spell, or the fact that the wand again wont work against Harry.

The problem is, if Voldemort has Harrys mums protection in his blood also, how is it that he can actually be killed; or is the protection in him too weak compared to in Harry? The more i think about it, the more confused i think im making myself...it made perfect sense when i read it, but of course academics always think they know more 

[tialessa]

Obviously harry didnt die when voldemort tried to kill him in the forest; was Nagini the link that held them both to life, or was it becuase Harry is the master of death, and therefore had a choice to go back or to move on...

I thought Harry didn't actually die because he was a Horcrux - as long as Voldemort was alive, Harry was able to stay alive.  So Harry was able to choose & when he came back he left the Horcrux which wasn't really alive to begin with. 
As for the blood bit & protection, Voldemort has very little of Harry's blood and he's weakened by the fact that all his Horcruxes have been destroyed.  The Avada Kedavra worked on Voldemort because even though he had the Elder Wand (which "belonged" to Harry) the wand still works, it just isn't the most powerful for him.
Boy is this confusing!  I think I'm getting a headache trying to reason it all out...

[kbmum]

Dumbledore said that Harry's blood in Voldemort's body tethered Harry to life; the killing curse basically destroyed the bit of Voldemort's soul he didn't know was inside Harry.  Harry then had a choice whether to live or die.  In the Forbidden Forest, Voldemort collapsed the same time as Harry did, because he had unwittingly destroyed his Horcrux (inside Harry) and had left only Nagini and the little piece of soul that remained inside himself.

In the Great Hall, Voldemort's Avada Kedavra curse collided with Harry's Expelliarmus, then rebounded and killed Voldemort, who was then as mortal as everyone else (since Neville had destroyed Nagini -- I loved that part!).

[Misty]

I was thinking it was the blood in Voldemort that gave Harry a tether if he wanted to go back (sort of a lifeline, if you will), but the protection from Lily had ceased to work when Harry no longer called Privet Drive home, so it wouldn't work for Voldemort either. 

This explains the gleam in Goblet of Fire, as Dumbledore knew Harry would have to die for Voldemort to die, but he was thinking (or as he put it "guessing") that that bit of blood would tether Harry to life if he let Voldemort kill him as planned, then only the hrcrux would be "killed", and Harry could return without it and finish Voldemort off when no links to life (horcruxes) remained for Voldemort.  That's what I got out of it anyway.

[kbmum]

the protection from Lily had ceased to work when Harry no longer called Privet Drive home, so it wouldn't work for Voldemort either. 

Oooh, good point!  This book is so complex, it's going to take several readings to sort it all out.

I'm going to post this elsewhere on the board, but in the US, the Today Show (7 a.m. EST) will have a two-part interview with JK set to air Thursday and Friday morning.  It will also run on Dateline this Sunday night.  They showed a little preview of it on the show this morning.  The interviews was conducted at Edinburgh Castle with a group of children who had all finished reading the book.  The reporter said that the kids asked questions, including why certain characters were killed.  Should be interesting!

[tialessa]

I'm going to post this elsewhere on the board, but in the US, the Today Show (7 a.m. EST) will have a two-part interview with JK set to air Thursday and Friday morning.  It will also run on Dateline this Sunday night.  They showed a little preview of it on the show this morning.  The interviews was conducted at Edinburgh Castle with a group of children who had all finished reading the book.  The reporter said that the kids asked questions, including why certain characters were killed.  Should be interesting!

Really?  Awesome - I'll set my VCR!

[kbmum]

The Dateline NBC show is scheduled to air Sunday, July 29, at 7 p.m. EST.

[Sharon]

I hate the fact that we don't get any of these brilliant interviews shown in the UK 

Cindy I think my thought process was the same as yours - the first Avada Kedavra killed the Horcrux but not Harry's 'soul' (for want of a better word).  Maybe the killing curse can only kill one thing at a time and in this case it was the Voldemort bit. 

The bit of Potter blood in Voldemort acted like a trail of breadcrumbs so that Harry could find his way back.  I don't think the 'Harry' blood that Voldemort had in him offered any protection at all, anymore than it offered to Harry himself.  Yes Lilly's love prevented Voldemort initially touching Harry but it never actually stopped the Dark Lord harming him - he took quite a pounding in the first three books albeit by third parties (Quirrell, Basilisk, Dementors).  As I understand it was actually Petunia's relationship to Lilly that protected him in Privet Drive which as Misty pointed out had by then ended.

Anyway that is how I am making sense of it 

[kbmum]

With YouTube and other websites, I have no doubt that you'll be able to watch the clips and shows on the Internet within a day or two of them airing in the US.

[blackcat20]

Thanks for all the responses to my musing...it looks like what I originally thought seems to be what everyone else here thinks...my confusion only occurred when the academic here at uni started questioning what i thought 

Ill pass on some of those answers!

For those interested also, through the leaky cauldron there is a link to a board where people are talking about their unanswered questions...things like what did they do with moody's body, who was the muggle who discovered magic late in life, etc...

UPDATE
So he still isnt convinced, and hopefully I can clearly explain why...
The first time Voldemort tries to kill Harry (as an infant), it appears that the curse rebounds, killing Voldemort (and destroying his body), and inadvertently making Harry a horcrux.
The second time (in the forest) Voldemort again tries to kill Harry; Harry isnt killed, but "dies". Voldemort also collapses, but this time keeps his body. It isnt apparent whether or not the curse rebounds, but if it had surely the other death eaters would have noticed it.
The third time (in the hall), Voldemort casts the curse, and it rebounds off Harry's spell, and kills Voldemort (but leaves his body intact).

So there appears to be some sort of inconsistency between the three events; particularly the second attempt. We know that Harry approaches death with acceptance, and that he also has the deathly hallows; so is this what makes the difference between the three occasions. Does Voldemort collapse becuase he has killed part of his own soul in attempting to kill Harry, but the two of them are tethered to life by the last Horcrux in Nagini (given they are tethered to one another)? Dumbledore also says (when harry is dead) that the enchantment survives while Voldemort lives ie. the protection he has by living with the Dursley's is not the same as the protection afforded by his mothers sacrifice... is anyone else confused yet?