Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Official Deathly Hallows Thread: There Are SPOILERS

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*

Just finished. Thought it was, by far, the best. Loved that Grindenwald's slogan was "for the greater good." Although, that surprised me a bit since Rowling is, supposedly, a socialist. Remember book 4's S.P.E.W.? "Socialist Party of England and Wales." There's also some character (can't remember which) that is named after Rowling's socialist author hero.

My only real complaint was that there wasn't enough of Snape.

Harry naming his son "Albus Severus" and calling Snape the "bravest man I ever knew" leaves little doubt as to Harry ended up feeling about Snape. But I would have loved to see something about what Snape thought of Harry. I wish he had said, with his dying breathe, something that showed his love and respect for Harry. Instead, all we got was, "take this memory so you can know how to finish your task." I also felt that Snape wasn't really redeemed. He did, after all, only turn against Voldemort because of a desire for revenge for killing Lily. However...all in all, I was pleased that Snape turned out to be on the good side.

SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*SPOILERS*

I also think everyone debating the selfishness/selflessness needs to remind themselves that Rowling did not use the definitions of those words that people on this board use. She used the popular definitions...and the ones that I tend to think of as the correct ones anyway, but I don't want to beat that dead horse again. However, I think we should all be able to agree that Harry's "selflessness" was virtuous, if you accept Rowling's apparent definition. Similarly, Dumbledore's previous "selfishness," was immoral...but he was redeemed.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added spoiler tags.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Something else I noticed, Snape said "Look at me" to Harry. I figured out that's because everyone always said that Harry had his mother's eyes. He also seemed upset that Harry was going to die...although that was probably because he was trying to do Lily a favor. Then, when Phineas Nigellus called Hermione a Mudblood, Snape replies: "Do not use that word!" So, maybe he was more redeemed than I thought. He also kills the Muggles Studies teacher, but I suppose she was about to die anyway.

Although...they talk about how torturous his reign at Hogwarts was. Even if the 2 Death Eaters were there to make life miserable, Snape swore he would protect the students. I suppose it was more important that he be able to remain as a spy.

Also, it would have been nice if Dumbledore had explained to Snape that Harry wouldn't really die. And that reminds me, when Harry asked where the "train" would take him and Dumbledore said "on," did that mean he would die for good?

At the end of Book 6, Snape advises Harry to learn to keep is mind and his mouth shut. Well, he only does the first. He learns to shut his mind to Voldemort, but never learns to cast silent spells.

I have also thought of 2 more things that bothered me (aside from the numerous typos). Firstly...Voldemort did not resurrect himself with Harry's blood until the end of the 4th book. So Dumbledore spent the first 4 books grooming Harry to sacrifice himself. He may have chosen to do it anyway, to save his friends and end the war, but it irks me that Dumbledore was willing to do it even without knowing that he would survive. I suppose he knew that, in the end, it would still be a choice that Harry would have to make. If he chose not to die, at least he got rid of the other Horcruxes. The other thing that bugs me is that I wish Snape had appeared with Harry's dead friends, when he used the resurrection stone.

Last 3 questions: were the apparitions of Harry's dead friends (including Dumbledore) the real spirits of the people who died, or were they something else (i.e. his imagination, "echoes," "imprints," etc)? Harry said he would put the Elder Wand back where it came from. Well...where was that? Harry said the last owner of Voldemort's wand "was disarmed." Who was it? I don't remember him disarming anyone to get it.

Sorry for the disjointed post...a lot of thoughts, and there wasn't really any way to make them flow together.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added spoiler tags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry said he would put the Elder Wand back where it came from. Well...where was that? Harry said the last owner of Voldemort's wand "was disarmed." Who was it? I don't remember him disarming anyone to get it.

Grindelwald stole the wand from Gregorovitch, making Grindelwald the true owner. Dumbledore dueled Grindelwald and took the wand, making Dumbledore the true owner. Draco disarmed Dumbledore (HBP, p.584 [HB]), sending the wand over the side of the castle, making Draco the true owner, but the wand was buried with Dumbledore. Harry disarmed Draco (who, granted, wasn't using the Elder Wand at the time) and took Draco's wand. Draco's wand remembered this, and when Harry used Draco's wand against the Elder Wand, apparently, as I understand it, the Elder Wand responded by transferring its allegiance to Harry, because Harry was the worthier wizard, having once disarmed Draco already. Harry intends to put the wand "back where it came from," meaning Dumbledore's tomb.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry said he would put the Elder Wand back where it came from. Well...where was that? Harry said the last owner of Voldemort's wand "was disarmed." Who was it? I don't remember him disarming anyone to get it.

Malfoy disarmed Dumbledoor. And then Harry disarmed Malfoy - and stole his (Malfoy's) wand, but also the Elder Wand by implication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished the book Sunday evening, and I was very satisfied with the way Rowling wrapped things up. Order of the Phoenix is still probably my favorite, closely followed by The Goblet of Fire, but the entire series is enjoyable. My kids will be reading it some day (once they exist).

Long live Potter!

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the entire book. I thought it was fantastic. I found the ending extremely satisfying.

The epilogue was especially sweet. I liked how Harry and Ginny named one of their sons "Albus Severus." Also, the ending was heart-wrenching! I was so afraid that Harry would actually die. The scene in which his parents, Sirius, and Lupin guide him through the forest was also quite poignant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised at the number of people who found the ending to be altruistic... obviously there were altruistic undertones, but Harry was protecting people he loved (Moose points this out above).

I think he realized he could die a victim, or otherwise die trying for people he loved - people who had created a "home" for him.

As for Ron, it says in the book that his feelings were amplified by the locket (though he'd originally held those feelings before). I'm not justifying his actions, but neither does Rowling (see: Hermione's anger at Ron).

One of the largest disappointments of the book was, in my opinion, Dumbledore's past obsession with power. A lot of people argue in defense of Dumbledore's "humanity", but we've all heard this argument before. Personally it sort of wrecked my image of him (or at the very least, put a dent in it). I found in an inessential plot point, and think Rowling could've justified Dumbledore's desire for the Elder Wand with a more justifiable (and by this, I also mean a more in-character) reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moose. Be considerate and use the spoiler button.

Thanks Moebius, but I think this discussion has passed the point of no return on the spoilers issue. I'm going to put "spoilers" in the thread title. That's also why I kept this thread separate from the other Book 7 thread even though I was asked if they should be merged: we have 1 thread for spoilers and 1 for no spoilers if there are still luddites hanging around that haven't gotten with the program and read the book yet.

Of course that's partially also because the spoiler tag bugs the crap out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malfoy disarmed Dumbledoor. And then Harry disarmed Malfoy - and stole his (Malfoy's) wand, but also the Elder Wand by implication.

I think the explanation above yours is correct, but Rowling should have made it more explicit. The wand Harry took from Draco was just Draco's regular wand. Voldemort had the Elder Wand, but it was loyal to Harry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that reminds me, when Harry asked where the "train" would take him and Dumbledore said "on," did that mean he would die for good?

I have also thought of 2 more things that bothered me (aside from the numerous typos). Firstly...Voldemort did not resurrect himself with Harry's blood until the end of the 4th book. So Dumbledore spent the first 4 books grooming Harry to sacrifice himself. He may have chosen to do it anyway, to save his friends and end the war, but it irks me that Dumbledore was willing to do it even without knowing that he would survive. I suppose he knew that, in the end, it would still be a choice that Harry would have to make. If he chose not to die, at least he got rid of the other Horcruxes. The other thing that bugs me is that I wish Snape had appeared with Harry's dead friends, when he used the resurrection stone.

Last 3 questions: were the apparitions of Harry's dead friends (including Dumbledore) the real spirits of the people who died, or were they something else (i.e. his imagination, "echoes," "imprints," etc)?

Anyone have any thoughts on these questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have any thoughts on these questions?

It's difficult to say what the apparitions are... whether they're figments of his imagination or actually spirits. It's also strange (and worth looking into) why the apparitions, for the first time in the book series, appear so young. I don't think Rowling ever explicitly states the answer, but I'm curious to see if anyone has any insight on this?

As for Dumbledore... I don't think he was conditioning Harry for death. Dumbledore's knowledge of the Horcruxes comes fairly late in the series, and though it's impossible to say when, I would say it happened between the times that the fifth and sixth books take place (the time when he discovers the ring). I think the journal in the second book might've been the first time he suspected it, but he admits in the sixth book that he knows little more than Harry does. I think the fact that Harry might have to "sacrifice" himself was a hunch.

I think in the first four books he genuinely sought to protect and educate Harry, knowing that he would have to fight Voldemort, but not necessarily die. That's at least what I guessed.

Edited by Catherine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that, in the end, the HP series took a nosedive into selflessness. Some evidence:

1. Harry and friends seriously risk their lives in order to rescue their enemies, Draco and Goyle, who only moments prior were trying to kill them (in the case of Goyle) or hand them over to Voldemort to be killed (in the case of Draco). This selfless act is especially distasteful when you consider that it was done during the height of the major battle in the book. So while Harry is wasting time and risking life and limb trying to save his mortal enemies from certain death, his loyal friends are busy dying at the hands of the Death Eaters. Rowling kills off Lupin and Tonks right after they have a baby, but she makes Harry rescue Draco and Goyle? That's twisted!

2. After Harry learns that he is a Horcrux and has been groomed for self-sacrifice by Dumbledore, he quickly embraces this fate, without discussing it with anyone else, and after less than a half-hour's contemplation. He walks through the forest to Voldemort's camp and lets the Dark Lord murder him, thinking that he is saving the world by sacrificing his life and destroying the seventh Horcrux that lives in his forehead.

3. Harry dies, but not really. And the dead Dumbledore somehow visits the inside of Harry's dead (but not really dead) head. They have a little conversation (inside Harry's head), and Dumbledore tells Harry that he is a "remarkably selfless person." Dumbledore boasts that he was allowed to take the Elder Wand because he took it "not for gain, but to save others from it." Then he says that Harry was able to use the resurrection stone because he used it not for "vain curiosity," but "to enable [his] self-sacrifice." Dumbledore then informs Harry that sort-of-dying wasn't enough, and if Harry returns from being sort-of-dead, he might be able to finish Voldemort off for good. So Harry goes back to suffer some more abuse before causing Voldemort to kill himself with his own rebounding killing curse, which is generally how selfless people manage to rid the world of their enemies. It's a good thing that evil is stupid and ends up killing itself. I don't suppose Voldemort ever thought of running Harry through with a pitchfork.

Needless to say, I wasn't impressed by this ending. I enjoyed the HP series up through Prisoner of Azkaban. I think it went downhill after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed it.

People shouldn't criticize so much about structure and writing styles unless they've written a book.

I agree with Moose about the selfless then. This may come as a shock, but the ideas Objectivists known are not widely known. This is by Rowling, not Rand. I don't expect the former to think like the latter. I forgive the different definitions of words, because "selfless" and "sacrifice" were used doesn't mean it's meant in the way we understand it to be. Most people hold this idea that sacrifice leads to you getting something better... it's odd, but that's how it's commonly used.

Harry saved his enemy, Malfoy, who he (Harry) wasn't even for sure of his true loyalities... given his non-complience with Voldemort, later, Draco's mother helps Harry in return. This is a good example of what I meant in that sentence above.

Harry thought, at the time, that there was no other way then to let himself die. Voldemort would die with him and it would be a gain in the end... It wasn't "die and gain nothing" either

The entire process seemed to give a glimpse into Rowlings mind as she wrote, Harry didn't know what to do because she didn't. There is something touching and powerful about that.

Did anyone notice the year that this booked takes place (I know, but i'm not saying because I want to see if someone else noticed it too before they read it and lie that they did.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People shouldn't criticize so much about structure and writing styles unless they've written a book.

Why not? Roger Ebert never directed a single movie in his life, yet he has made a living critiquing films for decades. You don't have to have actually done something to have an opinion about the worthiness of somebody else's creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone notice the year that this booked takes place (I know, but i'm not saying because I want to see if someone else noticed it too before they read it and lie that they did.)

The general fandom consensus is that this book takes place in

1997-1998.

This is based off of Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party. If there's another way to derive a date, I haven't yet found it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general fandom consensus is that this book takes place in

1997-1998.

This is based off of Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party. If there's another way to derive a date, I haven't yet found it.

You can get it from the

death dates

on

Lily & James'

tombstone

. I was actually surprised that they were so

young

when they

died

. Perhaps I find

parenthood

at

20

odd... But the

death dates

certainly confirm the deathday party calculations.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People shouldn't criticize so much about structure and writing styles unless they've written a book.

Hm, by this logic, people can't praise books either unless they've written one. Certainly one needs to understand the principles of good writing in order to offer a worthwhile criticism of a book/work of literature, but I don't think they need to have written a book.

The general fandom consensus is that this book takes place in

1997-1998.

This is based off of Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party. If there's another way to derive a date, I haven't yet found it.

Also, Lily and James died in 81, which means Harry was born in 1980 (he was 1 at the time of their death). Deathly Halllows would've taken place probably during 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...