Re: Hermione's book from DD
- From: Sirius Kase <SiriusKase@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:47:09 -0700
On Jul 30, 7:10 am, hanson_m...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:15 pm, Meghan Noecker <fries...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:59:47 -0700, Sirius Kase <SiriusK...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
So, the real question: Should the kids understand about the hallows
or were they just a distraction? This is a question that the kids
raised and discussed in the book. After some debate, they decided
that they should continue with the horcrux hunt, but that the hallows
were something they needed to understand, especially since Voldemrot
was going after the elder wand. Then, the resurrection rock was a
useful plot device for getting Harry in touch with all his dead pals
when he needed more support than he could muster on his own.
Note to Sirius: please accept my apologies for my last conversation
with you. You were quite right: it was I who was intolerant (and not a
little short-sighted). We live and learn...
no problem. I do believe we all speak a little freer here than face
to face.
I think there is still a lot of confusion over the end of the book.
Harry is told by Dumlebldore that he is mostly not dead. Yet he did
die to relase the soulbit from him.
Definitely confusion. I rather see it the other way around: AK kills
and therefore destroys the accidental horcrux, but Harry (unlike the
horcrux) is immune by reason of blood and therefore doesn't die. What
I *don't* get is why he had the choice to "go on". Surely he would
have had no choice but to wake up, bruised but alive, on the forest
floor?
I see this as a portrayal of a classic Near Death Experience. This
would be like someone is clinically dead, but then is somehow revived
either with or without the help of other people. Many people relate
it as a religous experience, but even those who don't frequently
consider it a spiritual event. Frequently, accepting death is seen as
giving up when you could fight it and recover. I believe that both
Harry and Voldemort had simultanous NDE, but Voldemort successfully
resisted death, he hung onto his horcruxes for dear life, while Harry
returned to life for a nobler reaason, he didn't fear death, he just
wanted to go back and either save Voldemort or kill him for good. As
long as he had his horcruxes, Voldemort could always revive himself,
and without a major change in his attitude towards death, he always
would.
So, what happened? He was the owner of all 3 hallows. True, he didn't
have them all in his posession at the time. But he was the owner of
them. And that may also be the reason had the choice to go back.
Or was that the reason why he had the choice to go on? Dumbledore
specifically planned for Harry *not* to unite the Hallows. That he did
so was unforeseen. But as we learn, being Master of Death doesn't mean
that you have the power to avoid death: it means that you have no need
to do so.
I know that Dumbledore mentions the blood issue with Voldemort and how
that helped him. But if that workes similar to a horcrux, it still
wouldn't explain why Harry still had an intact body to go back to. And
why that body is alive even after being dead. His body should have
been destroyed with his soul still intact.
We know that it doesn't work like a horcrux because this is the second
time this has happened to him. The first time gave him a lightning-
shaped scar (and quite possibly knocked him out); the second
definitely knocked him out and gave him a large bruise on his torso,
as if he had been punched.
Why did Voldemort also get knocked out? Because he effectively punched
himself?
Let's take a look at Dumbledore's plan if it had gone smoothly. The
Elder Wand would not be Harry's (therefore he would not have united
the Hallows and would not be "Master of Death") and if stolen would be
merely ordinary. And he gave Harry the Resurrection Stone to be used
*only* when Harry knew he was going to die.
It does seem that the Stone's only purpose was to give Harry the
support that he would need for this "different kind of bravery". The
book told him how to use it (turn it over three times). Learning that
ordinary invisibility cloaks wear out and can get damaged by spells,
whereas his seems to be impervious to time and transparent to spell-
casting, lends credence to the idea: the Hallows are real because he's
got one of them.
And the delay? Trust Dumbledore: you are meant to know but not to
seek, because seeking would undo the whole thing. Dumbledore intended
for Harry *not* to try to avoid death but to *believe* that he was
going to die and to walk into it without trying to defend himself.
Such an act, aside from taking out the shrapnel-horcrux, would
seriously weaken Voldemort's power to hurt others. That part of the
plan worked out, which is to say that I think Dumbledore intended it.
(It tickles me that Voldemort made both forks of the Prophecy come
true by handing Neville the very weapon that would enable him to
render Voldemort mortal.)
After that (still tracing the plan that went wrong), although
Dumbledore was betting on Harry's survival, it wasn't actually
necessary for the final defeat of Voldemort: he would have fallen to a
lynching mob. However, Harry's successful failure to die, coupled with
his fortuitous gaining of the Elder Wand, served to avoid further
bloodshed (and further soul-destruction). But I don't think it made
any difference to the final outcome. Voldemort was dead the moment he
shoved that hat onto Neville and set fire to it.
--
Mike.
.
- References:
- Hermione's book from DD
- From: Jazz
- Re: Hermione's book from DD
- From: Froggy
- Re: Hermione's book from DD
- From: Sirius Kase
- Re: Hermione's book from DD
- From: Meghan Noecker
- Re: Hermione's book from DD
- From: hanson_mike
- Hermione's book from DD
- Prev by Date: Re: A Quick Goodbye!!!
- Next by Date: Re: HP as comic book ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Hermione's book from DD
- Next by thread: Re: Hermione's book from DD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
