Harry Potter #7: (SPOILERS APLENTY): Now that you've read it...

Cafe Society
461

[QUOTE=oft wears hats]
…but she basically only told us [in the epilogue]:
• Harry is alive, his scar has not hurt since Voldemort’s downfall. He is married to Ginny and has three children, two named after his parents and one named after his mentors.
• Ron and Hermoine are alive and married, they have two children.
• Neville is alive and teaching Herbology at Hogwarts.
• Draco is alive and has one son.
• Lupin and Tonks’ son is alive and well. He practically lives with the Potters.

What about Luna? The rest of the Weasleys? Hagrid? The other Hogwarts professors? I honestly expected at least Luna and Hagrid to be included in the epilogue.
[/QUOTE]
Hagrid is mentioned. Something like ‘stop in and see Hagrid’. So we can assume that he is still at Hogwarts (but not necessarily a teacher). We also learn, in passing that Mr. Weasley is still alive. Of the above, the main points (Ron and Hermione, and Harry and Ginny) were no brainers.

Speculation leads me to believe that the death eaters were issued a general amnisty (‘Long national nightmare is over!’ kind of thing) as there is no good way to tell who was doing what and for what reasons. Earlier in the series we were told that the first fall of Voldemort was met with a lot of ‘inocent by reason of Imperious’ claims. Given the bad vibes caused by the wizard’s court I think they would just wipe the slate clean and start over. In any case Harry (and other ‘good guys’) used unforgivable curses.

462

I really enjoyed the whole series. While there were lots of plot details with holes in them, this strikes me as universal in fiction, especially fantasy. The great part about JKR’s writing was her collection of colorful characters who you really learned to love or hate, and the fantastic Hogwarts setting (not much new in this last book).

I had hoped that Harry would get together with Luna rather than Ginny, mainly because Ginny was pretty much an uninteresting character, while Luna was truly unique. I liked the scene where she had the pictures of her friends in her room, even though, sadly, few seemed to take her seriously, and where she opens the door to Ravenclaw by providing a totally sensible answer to the riddle about the Phoenix despite her normal persona as a flake (also when she told Harry to split from the final celebration using the cloak). In some ways she was the wisest, most sane character in the place, and one who was totally at peace with herself. I was really disappointed that she wasn’t mentioned in the epilog. Maybe she should be a principle character in Rowling’s next series!

463

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Question: Is there a reason that a good-guy can’t use the Avada Kadavra when battling a Death Eater? It would seem alright to kill in self-defense. I’m sure this has been mentioned in other books but I’m not recalling it.
[/QUOTE]

Well, Molly Weasley did. I think the main reason is that killing someone rips a part of your soul away. As much as I cheered for her attack, I felt sorry for Mrs. Weasley, because while I’m sure she would do it again in a heartbeat she was likely quite devastated about it afterward.

464

[QUOTE=RickJay]
2. Not everyone spends a lot of time busted up over losing a pet bird. Some people get over that sort of thing pretty quickly.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but I see Guinastasia’s point - Harry seems like the type who would take Hedwig’s death hard, especially since he had to blow up her body himself.

But he did have a lot on his plate.

465

Harry used the “Crucio” curse in a non-life-threatening situation, on Amycus Carrow when Carrow spit in McGonagall’s face (“You shouldn’t have done that”) in the Ravenclaw Common room. His quote" “I see what Bellatrix meant…you need to really mean it.” Badass!

Did anyone else think it was stupid of Voldemort to hide one of the horcruxes in the Gaunt house? No one had lived there for ages, and in the real world it would have been bulldozed for a strip mall or office block years before.

466

[QUOTE=sampiro]
…S I was surprised at how much the goblins resembled the Nazi caricatures of Jews. Going with that theory, their portrayal in this book when compared to vicious anti-Semitic stereotypes would have made Mel Gibson proud. Hopefully it’s just me.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not just you, because another Doper said something similar on page one or two of this thread. That said, I really don’t see that at all. I don’t think of Jewish as trolls or goblins–is it to the point that any nasty tempered person who works with money is said to be like “the Jews”? I thought the Nazi’s considered them unclean, and unattractive, with behavior problems and bad natures-not as trolls or goblins.

I truly don’t get this characterization. I’m aware of the stereotype of Jews as “moneygrubbing”, but have yet to meet a Jewish person who is like that (hell, I think all Americans, self included are money grubbers!). So, I don’t agree with your interp.

The goblins to me seemed just like in the book and in the fairy tales I’ve read–little men-like creatures who served themselves, were greedy and cunning and sly. If goblins in fairy tales are supposed to be Jewish people thinly disguised, I’d like to see a cite–out of sheer disbelief.

So, is Molly’s soul ripped? Surely there is a way around that…

467

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Anyone want to speculate that Dumbledore deliberately activated the curse upon himself (for Harry’s later protection), and merely allowed Snape to believe that he had blundered? It would be consistent with Dumbledore’s need-to-know approach to security.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think so. It’s pretty clear that Dumbledore was still haunted by Ariana’s death. I can see him being sorely tempted to find out if the stone really does work. Bringing her back to life would be too much to hope for, but even if he could just speak to Ariana’s ghost for a few moments, it would seem like a miracle. No, I think he probably really did let his guilt and curiosity get the better of him, and try on the ring without testing it for curses.

I have to imagine that Dumbledore probably did use the stone to talk to Ariana at some point. How else would he know that it really is one of the Hallows, and not just some bit of onyx?

There’s an even better reason: Basilisk venom can destroy a horcrux. And it just so happened that a basilisk lived down there.

468

[QUOTE=Orual]

I just think that’s a terrible message for the books to have: that one’s destiny as an untrustworthy, potentially evil git is set at the age of 11.
[/QUOTE]
Given the state of Slytherin after however many years of Snape’s Head-of-House-ship, I would have been surprised to see any of that lot changing loyalties.

Post-Voldemort, being in Slytherin needn’t brand one as a potentially evil git, though. Let’s assume McGonagall as the new Headmaster of Hogwarts installed a Slytherin Head able and determined to redirect Dark Art proclivities into healthier channels. The Sorting Hat would send students there who needed the extra help in staying on the Good side, and the Head of Slytherin would civilize, wherever possible, the power-seeking tendencies of those students.

I foresee the reconstituted Slytherin producing a disproportionate number of Wizard-world politicians. :smiley:

469

[QUOTE=Equipoise]
Did anyone else think it was stupid of Voldemort to hide one of the horcruxes in the Gaunt house? No one had lived there for ages, and in the real world it would have been bulldozed for a strip mall or office block years before.
[/QUOTE]

There were probably anti-Muggle spells protecting the property. Hogwarts has such protection, you know, and they arranged special protection for the International Quidditch Finals. There were probably other spells cast to hide the house which we don’t know about. Still, the ring had relatively little protection. Even Voldemort admits, albeit only to himself, that the ring is his worst-protected horcrux. I’m willing to bet that Slytherin’s locket was probably one of the last horcruxes made, and at that point Voldemort was both more powerful and more paranoid than he was in the past.

470

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I truly don’t get this characterization. I’m aware of the stereotype of Jews as “moneygrubbing”, but have yet to meet a Jewish person who is like that (hell, I think all Americans, self included are money grubbers!).
[/QUOTE]

Hence the terms “Nazi caricatures” and “vicious anti-Semitic stereotypes”, both of which imply “by definition racist” and “not really extant in large numbers”, but your “I’m not anti-semitic” points are earned for the day. As to how I’d cite an observation that I say is “hopefully just me” I’m not sure.

Speaking of goblins, was there anything to robbing Gringott’s that couldn’t have been accomplished with the Imperius Curse alone (had Harry thought of it)? Griphood wasn’t really that essential, save for the bit about dragon clangers. I’ll wager that in the movie they’ll cut Griphook and just have Bill supply the info.

Another wager is that Rowling’s next book will be Tales of Beedle the Bard as a charity venture. It’d be a great way of getting rid of any tidbits and plot devices she thought about but tossed during the writing of HP. (I wouldn’t be surprised if she never wrote a full length non HP novel as it would have to be ego=deflating; Og knows she doesn’t need the money and anything she ever releases is going to be weighed and found wanting, even if it’s great.)

The concept of a mother’s love is so major in the book from Lily to Molly to Kendra to Voldemort’s growing up without Merope and even Petunia’s for Duddykins. It makes me wonder if it’s intentional that JK began writing it soon after her mother died (and was a single mother herself of course before it was published).

471

[QUOTE=oft wears hats]
Two of the most shocking moments for me:
• Harry breaking his wand. I really felt for Harry there. I mean, that was *his *wand, it was the first true confirmation of his status as a wizard, he survived a duel with Voldemort with it, he kicked Death Eater ass with it. And then it breaks, in an accident. Total bummer.
[/QUOTE]

Other than Ron, Hermione and Harry he loses everything he loved his first year (wand, owl, Dumbledore). I think it was another statement on the value of loving humans.

Or return to the person. I was surprised that V. couldn’t feel the destruction of a horcrux.

I think Harry was the only human who had a piece of him (conjures a vision of Deniro or Pesci as Voldemort: “You wanna piece o’me Potter? How bout I put one right there!”)

I think that was all of V’s soul on the floor of King’s Cross. I got that he was dead or very near death while Harry was dead, plus Harry’s scar not aching afterwards implied that wherever V was he was completely gone from this realm.

Non-sequitur: I expected the dragon to come join in the attack out of some sort of dragon gratitude thing. Apparently they have brains more akin to chickens. (The store where I bought the book had owls [with their breeders/handlers] that night- beautiful eyes, but the lady assured everybody that in spite of their assn with wisdom they’re incredibly stupid animals.)

472

So, has anyone figured out just what was in this book that gave JKR “goosebumps” after watching the third film? (Interview)

Only problem I have with this is that she was the one to make the Harry / Voldemort prophecy (not to mention her other, later one).

Is there a transcript to that, anywhere?

Interesting notes / questions:
[ul]
[li]One from each of the pairs in the book were killed (Crabbe and Fred).[/li][li]How was Harry able to hold off all his teachers and peers in his fight with Volemort with a shield spell (which now acts like a bowl rather than a straight wall?)?[/li][li]What was the point of camping, really? Wouldn’t it have been safer at the Burrow (not to mention better food!)? Perhaps, after the fact, it wouldn’t have been safer, what with a price on Harry’s head, but why was the original plan to go camping?[/li][li]Accio Hagrid?! Look what happened when Harry tried to summon his glasses![/li][li]I thought that the Weasly family huddling around Fred’s corpse was much more poignant than any scene with George weeping (I mean, he didn’t cry when his ear got chopped off - a scene like that would ruin the character, IMO)[/li][li]I thought all of the wandlore info was pretty flimsy, especially for such a major part of the plot.[/li][li]I’m sad the phoenix wasn’t in the book at all.[/li][li]I’m annoyed (and disappointed) that there wasn’t any tie-in, or much use of, the voiceless spellcasting that seemed to be a large part of the sixth book.[/li][li]I vaguely remember something about Muggle electronics and machinery not working on Hogwarts’ grounds… so there go the grenade / sniper ideas, unfortunately.[/li][/ul]
…that’s enough for now :slight_smile:

473

[QUOTE=Diceman]
There were probably anti-Muggle spells protecting the property. Hogwarts has such protection, you know, and they arranged special protection for the International Quidditch Finals. There were probably other spells cast to hide the house which we don’t know about.
[/QUOTE]
The house wasn’t hidden though. Muggles did know about it; Tom Riddle Sr. passed by in a carriage and commented on the shabby look of the place.

I wondered about the anti-Muggle spells (besides Hogwarts, the Burrow had one on it too, didn’t it) but it still seems weird. What if someone did want to build something at a place where a “hiding” charm was cast? If it were occupied, like the Burrow or Hogwarts, Memory Charms could be cast left and right make Muggles forget that they were interested in the land. But the Gaunt house was empty and forgotten for many years at a time.

[QUOTE=Diceman]
Still, the ring had relatively little protection. Even Voldemort admits, albeit only to himself, that the ring is his worst-protected horcrux. I’m willing to bet that Slytherin’s locket was probably one of the last horcruxes made, and at that point Voldemort was both more powerful and more paranoid than he was in the past.
[/QUOTE]
I’m surprised he didn’t go get it immediately after he came back to power. Dumbledore should never have been able to just waltz in and get it.

474

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
So, is Molly’s soul ripped? Surely there is a way around that…
[/QUOTE]
I believe that Slughorn says that the act of murder is what rips your soul (and allows you to create a horcrux.) A homicide is not necessarily a murder. In Molly’s case, it was killing an enemy during a battle, or you could call it self-defense. I think her soul is fine.

475

[QUOTE=ENugent]
Harry seems like the type who would take Hedwig’s death hard, especially since he had to blow up her body himself.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure how much mourning is expected, but after Hagrid and Harry land at the Tonks’ house, Hagrid asks Harry “where’s Hedwig” and Harry has tears in his eyes remembering his friend and companion at Hogwarts and during the lonely summers at the Dursleys.

476

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Speaking of goblins, was there anything to robbing Gringott’s that couldn’t have been accomplished with the Imperius Curse alone (had Harry thought of it)? Griphood wasn’t really that essential, save for the bit about dragon clangers. I’ll wager that in the movie they’ll cut Griphook and just have Bill supply the info.
[/QUOTE]

I realize there’s supposed to be this whole bit about the creatures in the gold Ministry statue all taking part in the final stretch of the quest, right, but I really, really wanted Bill to be the one to orchestrate the big break-in and Charley Weasley to do the dragon-wrangling.

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Linguistic note: anybody else notice this difference in UK and US English- that Rowling ends sentences with “done” that we’d end a word earlier at “have/had”? Example: “This wand worked better than his last wand had done” or “He handled the situation differently than his dad would have done”. A little difference I wasn’t familiar with.
[/QUOTE]
If I call up my lovely English friend and say “you want to go see a movie?” She says “we could do!” Or “Your husband might make you dinner,” she’d say “well, he might do, but he’ll probably just order a pizza.” I love this.

[QUOTE=oft wears hats]
Another thing: If the Elder Wand recognized Harry as its master, and thusly would not attack him (hence the rebounding AK curse and Voldemort’s death), why did it work on him the first time in the forest? Wasn’t Voldemort using the Elder Wand then? I know it’s convenient and necessary for the bit of his soul to be removed from Harry’s body, but shouldn’t the Elder Wand have refused to kill Harry?
[/QUOTE]

I think the interpretation (or maybe it was stated in the book?) upthread was that Avada Kedavra targets the soul, and in this case destroyed the outermost layer, the Voldemort parasite part, which wasn’t protected by Harry’s mastery over the wand.

[QUOTE=Diceman]
There were probably anti-Muggle spells protecting the property. Hogwarts has such protection, you know, and they arranged special protection for the International Quidditch Finals. There were probably other spells cast to hide the house which we don’t know about.
[/QUOTE]
Well, not only that, but whole buildings can be removed from Muggle perception of space (see also: The Leaky Cauldron) or nearly everyone’s perception of space (see: Potter fam home/hide-out and #12 Grimmauld Place).

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Non-sequitur: <snip> (The store where I bought the book had owls [with their breeders/handlers] that night- beautiful eyes, but the lady assured everybody that in spite of their assn with wisdom they’re incredibly stupid animals.)
[/QUOTE]

Base slander!

477

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
So, is Molly’s soul ripped? Surely there is a way around that…
[/QUOTE]

That was poor wording on my part. I didn’t mean ripped the way it was with Big V and Harry. I meant that killing another person is an emotionally wrenching thing for many people, and the wizarding world would want to discourage the use of lethal attacks, especially when they have in their hands plenty of non-violent and/or less lethal methods of disabling opponents.

478

Crap, ran out of edit time.

[QUOTE=Diceman]
There were probably anti-Muggle spells protecting the property. Hogwarts has such protection, you know, and they arranged special protection for the International Quidditch Finals. There were probably other spells cast to hide the house which we don’t know about.
[/QUOTE]

Edit: at first I misunderstood and thought you were talking about the Potter house monument, but see Equipoise’s response on preview. Oops. Anyway, I suppose there are enough abandoned, crummy houses around, even in California where land values are occasionally obscene, that it didn’t strike me as too odd that there could be such a place in the story. Hell there’s one back to back with my property in a pretty nice, bordering-a-historic-neighborhood, neighborhood. Plus, places like Hogwarts appear to be crumbling, “do not enter” ruins to Muggles, but also make you suddenly realize an important engagement elsewhere that you must run off to (to which you must run off?). And, it’s unplottable! So someone trying to buy it couldn’t even pinpoint it on a land survey.

479

Can someone walk me through the logic of Harry’s final comments to Voldemort about the Elder wand?

Draco stole the wand from Dumbledore, or something? So now Harry had the Elder Wand or something? Or something?

I was lost, I confess.

I could go read it again but I’m all read out right now.

-FrL-

480

Draco disarmed Dumbledore in the tower scene at the end of book 6. Snape killed him, but Draco bested him first by disarming him. Therefore, Draco is the current master. Only Harry disarmed Draco back in the room of requirement, right? So now Harry is the master of the wand. The V-man only thought Snape was the master, and Dumbledore intended for Snape to gain the wand (though I’m still not entirely clear why Dumbledore would want this).