Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (SPOILERS!)

[Ahimsa]

As the locket dragged Harry to the bottom of the lake I couldn’t help but think…

Lord of the Rings.

All in all though, less people than I expected died. That is, of people including Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny.

I guess happy endings to stories are alright.

Hints of Artorius Rex, or King Arthur, when Harry hoisted a sword from someplace, I forgot where.

 

[LRThunder]

As the locket dragged Harry to the bottom of the lake I couldn’t help but think…

Lord of the Rings.

All in all though, less people than I expected died. That is, of people including Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny.

I guess happy endings to stories are alright.

Speaking of the locket, notice the similarity to Ron’s attitude changing when he was wearing it and Frodo’s changing in Return of the King.

 

[RobNY]

Speaking of the locket, notice the similarity to Ron’s attitude changing when he was wearing it and Frodo’s changing in Return of the King.

The ring wants to return to its master. The locket. I meant. The locket.

Ahmisa-- I suppose, but then again, Ron was the one who was supposed to use the sword (no reason given, as far as I remember)… and we must not forget, “Weasley is our king.”

-Rob

 

[bekalc]

While I enjoyed it, I didn’t much care for Wizard Assisted Suicide. The excuse of Dumbledore to have Snape kill him to avoid humiliation just wasn’t moral and was just plain euthanasia. Whether you are going to die anyway does not change the moral weight of the situation.

Well Dumbledore did give other reasons. Such as the fate of the Malfoys. If it was only about no pain and suffering, wouldn’t Dumbledore have had Snape do it earlier…Still, that comment in and of itself made me really uncomfortable (very uncomfortable frankly) And I thought Dumbledore’s brother’s point about how is brother is sending 17 year olds on this dangerous mission, while he is free from harm was really* poignant*.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

I agree with the whole issue that Dumbledore’s request of Snape was not moral. But the entire book seemed to be hammering home the idea that Harry was the true hero,** that he was the greatest wizard who ever lived, not Dumbledore**. Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him because he knew he was already dying and wished not to suffer, something which Harry would never have asked of anyone. Harry was shown to be self-sacrificing and generally immune to the seduction of power, which Dumbledore himself admitted he was not. Was anyone else reminded very strongly of Frodo and Gandalf?

YES! This explains it very well. Its not that “wizard assisted suicide” is a good thing or a moral good or even a necessary evil. Snape was not happy about having to do it. DD is more concerned about Draco’s soul than Snape’s. Here he is trying to influence/control the outcome so that Snape gets the Elder wand, but it doesn’t go the way he planned. DD states that he has made huge mistakes, we think its about trusting Snape, but its about his other actions relating to power, specifically power over death, and his desire to wield it. Which is what assisted suicide is about.

I don’t remember Gandalf making any moral mistakes like DD. But Harry, Ron & Hermione remind me of Frodo with the ring/locket bringing out the worst in their personalities.

 

[RobNY]

Besides, Gandalf comes back from death, transfigured, and Dumbledore does not.

Something I was just thinking over-- did Neville use Griffindor’s sword to kill Nagini? And if he did, does that mean that Griphook came back and gave it to him? I was unclear on that.

This book did get me thinking about one thing, though-- death, and do I really believe that my lifeless body will be reanimated and glorified at the end of time. Death is certainly a thought provoking thing.

-Rob

 

[wisdom_3_5]

Something I was just thinking over-- did Neville use Griffindor’s sword to kill Nagini? And if he did, does that mean that Griphook came back and gave it to him? I was unclear on that.
-Rob

Neville pulled the sword out of the sorting hat like Harry did in CoS. I think it means the sword belonged to Godric Gryffindor & it aids true Gryffindors in need. I bet Griphook was pretty mad at losing it. Goblins and wizards will probably never see eye to eye.

 

[Tonks40]

Dumbledore’s explanation to Harry about why he laid out the plans that he did (including asking Snape to kill him) seemed apologetic, and I think JKR was trying to convey that to the readers. Intrinsically, yes, DD asking Snape to kill him was a moral offense; this emphasized moreso on how Harry was the better man morally.

Other than that, the book was great! I’m very happy with how everything turned out in the end.

RIP Nymphadora Tonks.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

Other than that, the book was great! I’m very happy with how everything turned out in the end.

RIP Nymphadora Tonks.

Ahhh, I was wondering how you would take that!

 

[RobNY]

Neville pulled the sword out of the sorting hat like Harry did in CoS. I think it means the sword belonged to Godric Gryffindor & it aids true Gryffindors in need. I bet Griphook was pretty mad at losing it. Goblins and wizards will probably never see eye to eye.

Ah yes. I should have read more carefully.

I also had a thought: it would have been nice to have heard more about Dudley, who seemed to have been changed. It would have been interesting to see a son of Dudley’s boarding the train to Hogwarts.

-Rob

 

[OldAgeGuru]

I just finished! It was really good. I can’t believe how much I got “right”!

Spoilers:​

I would have had Harry and Ginny have another kid & name him Severus though. And Lupin’s kid would have been living with Harry before he went to Hogwarts.

I don’t know if he would have lived with Harry, if you think about it,Lupin left Tonks at her parents house with the baby. Tonks’ dad Ted, was killed, then Tonks and Lupin. At this point, Harry was still 17. By the time Harry might have been able to care for the child, he would have been let’s say 22-23, at which point the child would have been 5-6 years old, and Harry and Tonks’ mom might have discussed that it would be better for the kid to live where he had been living all along, but to have Harry play an active role in his life the way Sirius did before his passing. If the baby was going to live somewhere else, my guess would be the Burrow with the Weasley’s.

I’m such a geek that I actually thought about the possibility myself before remembering that Harry wasn’t a 20 something with a job at the time of Lupin and Tonks death. Ahh well, here’s to hoping for round to with the next set of kids!

 

[RobNY]

I’m such a geek that I actually thought about the possibility myself before remembering that Harry wasn’t a 20 something with a job at the time of Lupin and Tonks death. Ahh well, here’s to hoping for round to with the next set of kids!

So yeah, what was Harry’s job, after all that? You know, after the business of slaying Dark Lords dried up.

-Rob

P.S. I loved that Neville became a professor. He became one of the genuinely most likable characters in the series.

 

[Meggie]

One thing that got me…she took 17 years to write the books…and the epilogue is for 19 years later…wow thats convenient

 

[SeekerJen]

Besides, Gandalf comes back from death, transfigured, and Dumbledore does not.

Something I was just thinking over-- did Neville use Griffindor’s sword to kill Nagini? And if he did, does that mean that Griphook came back and gave it to him? I was unclear on that.

This book did get me thinking about one thing, though-- death, and do I really believe that my lifeless body will be reanimated and glorified at the end of time. Death is certainly a thought provoking thing.

-Rob

Neville pulled Gryffindor’s sword out of the Sorting Hat. In Book 2, Dumbledore told Harry at the end that only a true Gryffindor could pull that sword out of the hat, so it was a nice bit in a scene where Voldemort was trying to convince Neville that all purebloods should be Slytherin.

And what I meant with the Dumbledore/Gandalf comparison was that Gandalf, like Dumbledore, acknowledged that he was not pure enough to wield the One Ring (or Hallows); Frodo/Harry was. I know that Dumbledore did not come back from the dead, nor was Harry so altered by the events that he was unable to lead a normal life. J.K. Rowling had to have some original material.

 

[Ahimsa]

Most names in JK’s books have relevant meanings. E.g., Sirius Black – Sirius referring to the brightest star in the sky (“Sirius”, the Dog-Star); and black referring to the lack of brightness – possibly pointing to Sirius Black’s apparently laboring for the Dark Side.

What does “Harry Potter” mean?

 

[Kevin42]

I have to admit one of my favorite parts was to learn that Snape really was a good person after all. He goes down as one of my favorites now. While he may not have had the best motives or feelings at times, his sacrifices for many people were probably the most unnoticed, and the hardest. Having to go on helping protect people who despise you and have no idea of your sacrifces…very heroic in my opinion.

 

[RobNY]

What does “Harry Potter” mean?

Nothing.

I think that was part of J.K.'s point in this book. Being a hero isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Like Harry says to Ron somewhere in the book. Harry was an ordinary person living… well, in rather extraordinary circumstances. And since what set him apart was (contra Voldemort, Grindewald, and Dumbledore at times) how responsibility was thrust upon him-- not how he was seeking after it himself. That, and the other capacities of J.K.'s hero-- he refused to kill (e.g., Stan, or again, with his constant use of the disarming spell rather than any harmful spell-- even against Voldemort), he trusted in people, and to some extent the hackneyed, “love.”

These really aren’t peculiar to someone great-- at least not by the world’s standards, and perhaps J.K. was thinking that. Notice how Harry lives his life out in a rather uneventful fairy tale way-- he marries his Hogwarts sweetheart and has a boatload of children. All Harry really wants to do is to have an ordinary life and to not be a marked man.

Of course, perhaps I overstated my case here, but, take it as you will.

-Rob

 

[syme]

All along, indeed since the last book, I was terribly afraid that Dumbledore’s death might have been “engineered.” I tried to tell myself it wasn’t by thinking that JK Rowling wouldn’t include something so macabre and wrong. So I was convinced that Snape had killed him of his own volition and was really Voldemort’s agent all along.

But now that the truth is revealed I am very disappointed. Let’s not kid ourselves: this was assisted suicide. I had a glimmer of hope that it would have been portrayed as wrong, but it WASN’T. It was portrayed as something difficult and unpleasant to do, but not as WRONG. A lot of people will come out of this thinking it was the right choice, especially after Dumbledore talks about avoiding a humiliating and painful death. Dumbledore’s actions towards Ariana et al are portrayed as wrong, that is correct. It is clear that Dumbledore is flawed, but Rowling never shows the his planned death to be an evil. Think about Harry’s speech to Voldemort. Harry taunts him by telling him that Dumbledore had arranged his own death months before. He portrays this as a triumph of Dumbledore over Voldemort.

I’ve been a fan of the Harry Potter books since I picked up book 1, but now I am forced to admit that there are troubling things in the book. Indeed I would just plainly say that there is poison in them, if admittedly mingled with the book.

Or let me put it another way. Rowling’s vision is undoubtedly Christian – Harry’s self-sacrifice, “death,” and “resurrection” prove that – but it is also heretical, subtly distorted. If I had kids, I would not let them read this until long after their moral conscience had been solidly formed.

 

[Kevin42]

Was it really assisted suicide? Dumbledore was certainly probably going to be killed by Malfoy or one of the other Death Eaters. Snape and Dumbledore made the arrangement to avoid tearing Malfoys soul, and seeing as Dumbledore’s death seemed imminent that night, I have a heard time seeing this as “assisted suicide”. Perhaps I will have to go back and reread that part of the sixth book though, since it has admittidly been a while.

 

[RobNY]

As a side note, I just realized another thing J.K. may have been pointing to. She opened the book with a powerful quote from Aeschylus’ The Libation Bearers. Perhaps this is too much of a stretch, but if anyone is familiar with the Oresteia they know of the troubled history of the house of Atreus- where violence begets violence in a seemingly endless pattern. Violence necessitates revenge, and the cycle cannot break. It ends, oddly enough, when violence will not continue, when the Furies are stopped from fulfilling their duties as the punishers of matricide.

The gods of reason side with Orestes, and in the foundational myth which Aeschylus creates, they acquit him with Athena’s tie-breaking vote in a trial by jury. The Furies become the Eumenides, and themselves serve as a foundation to the city of Athens when Athena persuades them to participate.

Harry in many ways represents a refusal to perpetuate the, ‘cycle of violence,’ especially as regards the Elder Wand and Voldemort.

Perhaps too much of a stretch.

-Rob