Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, **HERE THERE BE SPOILERS** You've been warned! - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-24-2011, 06:55 AM
 
seashells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Cool. I figured I'd be Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. I scored Hufflepuff on the Brainfall one. I'm smart (though maybe not modest? lol) but I think I scored Hufflepuff because I tended to pick the more laid-back options. I'm not that great of a team player but I opt to go with the flow rather than start ordering everyone around. When I was in school, I hated group projects (the results were invariably poorer than what I could have done on my own) but would just shut up and deal.

seashells is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-24-2011, 10:07 AM
 
beanma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: with the dustbunnies & sugar beans
Posts: 8,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

I got Hufflepuff, too! (not Slytherin, not Slytherin!(


Mamatreehugger.gif to two girl beans, Feb 2001hearts.gif and Nov 2003coolshine.gif . DH geek.gif, and two crazydog2.gifdog2.gif . Running on biodiesel since 2004!
 
"All you fascists are bound to lose" — Woody Guthrie
beanma is offline  
Old 02-24-2011, 12:49 PM
 
TEAK's Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Juneau, AK
Posts: 2,231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I always seem to end up in Ravenclaw. 

TEAK's Mom is offline  
Old 02-25-2011, 11:38 AM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post

There are quite a few online Sorting Hats and House quizzes.  Here are a couple, http://timidity.org/tests/sortinghat.html  and  http://www.brainfall.com/results/which-hogwarts-house-would-you-be-in/

 

They both put me in Hufflepuff!  lol.gif

 

Hufflepuff.jpg


I ended up in Ravenclaw. Interesting - I did a few of these about 7-8 years ago, and ended up in Hufflepuff every time, except for one that put me in Gryffindor. I'm not surprised I haven't ended up in Slytherin. I lack ambition, any desire for power, and am so far from cunning that it sometimes depresses me. Mind you, I'm not nice enough for Hufflepuff, brave enough for Gryffindor, or smart enough for Ravenclaw, either - I think the Sorting Hat would tell me to leave. :o


Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 02-25-2011, 05:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
journeymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Having a Gilly Water with McGonagall
Posts: 7,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

The way they word these quizzes I think if you have the least bit 'loyalty' to 'friends' or 'family' you're put in Hufflepuff.


Someone moved my effing cheese.
journeymom is offline  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:24 PM
 
HeatherAtHome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post

The way they word these quizzes I think if you have the least bit 'loyalty' to 'friends' or 'family' you're put in Hufflepuff.


Yeah, I think so. I ended up in Hufflepuff too.Although if I think about it, I guess that's where I'd really fit. 

 

It just hit me again that the last movie is coming out soon and I sort almost don't want to see it. I don't want it to end! Trying to decide if I'll go back and read ALL the books again like I did before Part 1. Four and a half months to go..... I am going to cry so much! I still remember when I got the DH book delivered and reading it straight through (is there any other way?). Sticky hot weather, read in bed surrounded by snacks and jumping up to tell DH parts of the story. He laughed because I cried about Hedwig! 

 

So did everyone else make the connection right away about Harry sacrificing himself for others, coming back to life etc and how it mirrored Jesus and his resurrection? I was talking to my sister about it just last week (she's studying different religions) and she hadn't even noticed. It blew her mind. Then she felt stupid afterwards for not noticing. lol.gif


Blogging about renovations in our first home
HeatherAtHome is offline  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:30 PM
 
seashells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yeah I had made the connection.

Oh well, nobody can notice everything every time.

seashells is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:33 AM - Thread Starter
 
journeymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Having a Gilly Water with McGonagall
Posts: 7,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

Heather, your sister should check this out:

 

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/harry-potter-and-the-gospel-of/

 

It was written in 2006, after HBP and before Deathly Hallows.  I don't know if this particular link is to the original article, but I remember it caused quite a stir in the HP world.

 

It was particularly exciting because Snape had just killed Dumbledore and his loyalties were still questionable.  Was Snape good or bad??

 

Sigh. That was such fun. I doubt this generation will ever experience such hype about a story again.


Someone moved my effing cheese.
journeymom is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 12:59 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

 

Quote:
So did everyone else make the connection right away about Harry sacrificing himself for others, coming back to life etc and how it mirrored Jesus and his resurrection? I was talking to my sister about it just last week (she's studying different religions) and she hadn't even noticed. It blew her mind. Then she felt stupid afterwards for not noticing.

Ehh... apparently a fair number of people who read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe fail to notice the religious allegory aspect, so she shouldn't feel too bad. Personally I think the Deathly Hallows "Jesus" angle is a bit overstated. I mean yes, dying and coming back to life is always going to remind people of Jesus, but I dunno... I just don't feel it. Not nearly as much as, say, the Christology in LOTR (despite the fact that there were multiple "Christ"-figures in that!). Harry didn't "ascend" afterwards, his death wasn't particularly deliberate - a result of his bravery, yes, but not a conscious "I will now die for you, my friends" thing - it didn't involve prolonged suffering a la the crucifixion, plus, technically, of course, he didn't actually die. :p Medically speaking it would be considered a near-death experience, right?

 

It has been awhile since I read Book 7, so I'm very possibly missing something. But I do recall not getting a "Jesus" vibe at the time. I know some churches leapt on the connection as a counter-argument to "Harry Potter teaches evil and witchcraft", though. "No, it's OK! It's a Jesus allegory!". :p


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
Old 03-02-2011, 02:40 PM
 
beanma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: with the dustbunnies & sugar beans
Posts: 8,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

Well, I think it was a deliberate act on Harry's part. That much is very clear. He walked up to Voldy and basically said here I am and I'm not gonna stop you, but it wasn't so much to save everyone. Well, I guess it was, but it was more to destroy the Horcrux I think. I think he told Neville about Nagini so that someone would have a chance at finishing Voldy off.

 

I agree that it's not as much a Christ-like allegory as some would make it out to be and I'm not sure it was even deliberate on Rowling's part. I mean, I'm sure she realized it, but I think she just sorta went with it rather than said, "I'm going to create Harry to be a Jesus figure" like the Narnia books, in which that was certainly the case. I think in HP it was more that Rowling had absorbed the Christian story and it just bubbled up in places.


Mamatreehugger.gif to two girl beans, Feb 2001hearts.gif and Nov 2003coolshine.gif . DH geek.gif, and two crazydog2.gifdog2.gif . Running on biodiesel since 2004!
 
"All you fascists are bound to lose" — Woody Guthrie
beanma is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 03:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
journeymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Having a Gilly Water with McGonagall
Posts: 7,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

He was fully prepared to die when he walked through the woods to meet Voldemort. He didn't KNOW for sure if he would die.  But I thought it was clear that he understood and accepted that he would probably die.

 

I do think JKR purposefully used a Christ allegory, but not for religious reasons. I think she used the Christ allegory because it's an awesome story that's become part of our lexicon of archetypal stories. You can refer to it and for most of your readers it will conjure up a host of imagery and meaning, so you don't have to laboriously and clumsily spell it out. 

 

Christ story bubbled up - I like that.

 

 


Someone moved my effing cheese.
journeymom is offline  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:08 AM
 
seashells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Well, it's probably the bravest thing you can do. Sacrificing yourself for others. And not even jumping in front of a bullet, but walking to your death.

 

There are definitely differences - but it would have been sooooo awful (and cheesy and even offensive) if JKR made it exactly like the sacrifice of Christ. When I read it, I thought to myself a bit about whether it was cool or over the top that she did it, but I concluded it was a very intense (meaning good) ending to the series.

seashells is offline  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:41 AM
 
ollyoxenfree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

 

The core message of Christianity is salvation through love and sacrifice. The books began with Lily sacrificing herself to save her child and Harry gaining protection against evil via her love and sacrifice. They ended with Harry emulating her sacrifice and again defeating evil with love. It's a brilliant full circle. I think the comparisons are inevitable and I can't believe that an author as clever as JKR would stumble upon on it blindly or thoughtlessly. 

 

 

ollyoxenfree is offline  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:13 PM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

You know, not all martyrdom refers back to Jesus.  Really.

merpk is offline  
Old 03-03-2011, 01:06 PM
 
ollyoxenfree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post

You know, not all martyrdom refers back to Jesus.  Really.


True, but considering the allusions she makes throughout the series to myth, legend and religion, and the well-known care she took in plotting the books, creating the characters and the setting, it seems highly unlikely that anything so obvious and significant that contributes to the central theme of the books was created by accident or unconsciously.   

 

In any event, JKR herself acknowledges the parallels to Christianity she wrote into the series, particularly in the last book. (Just found with the help of google)

 

ollyoxenfree is offline  
Old 03-03-2011, 02:34 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

 

Quote:
The core message of Christianity is salvation through love and sacrifice.

Well, no, it's salvation through faith in Christ. Or are you referring to Christ's love and sacrifice?

 

Maybe the parallels are closer than I remember; I should re-read the book. I had the impression Harry's death wasn't quite as deliberate as all that; but it's been a while!

 

I remember when the book came out, a fair few people were rolling their eyes and going "Oh, right, he nearly dies but it turns out OK" - a lot of fans thought it was a copout, and she should have killed him off for good (or killed off Ron or Hermione). Woulda been a pretty downer ending to the series, though!

 

ETA: Heh, just read the link. I didn't realise the Pope himself denounced the books! I wonder if he actually read them...


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
Old 03-03-2011, 07:29 PM
 
kaliki_kila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: East Bay, California
Posts: 732
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

Well, no, it's salvation through faith in Christ. Or are you referring to Christ's love and sacrifice?

 

Maybe the parallels are closer than I remember; I should re-read the book. I had the impression Harry's death wasn't quite as deliberate as all that; but it's been a while!

 

I remember when the book came out, a fair few people were rolling their eyes and going "Oh, right, he nearly dies but it turns out OK" - a lot of fans thought it was a copout, and she should have killed him off for good (or killed off Ron or Hermione). Woulda been a pretty downer ending to the series, though!

 

ETA: Heh, just read the link. I didn't realise the Pope himself denounced the books! I wonder if he actually read them...


Just randomly jumping in on the tail-end of this conversation.  Harry willingly dies and sacrifices his life for all the people inside the castle.  And then when he comes back and he's fighting Voldemort in the castle, he tells Voldemort that none of these people have been hurt by the Death Eaters since the moment he sacrificed his life because his love and sacrifice protected them - just like when Lily died and Voldemort couldn't hurt baby Harry.

 

"You won't be killing anyone else tonight,"  said Harry as they circled, and stared into each other's eyes, green into red.  "You won't be able to kill any of them ever again.  Don't you get it?  I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people -"

 

"But you did not!"

 

"-I meant to, and that's what did it.  I've done what my mother did.  They're protected from you.  Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding?  You can't torture them.  You can't touch them  You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?"

 

kaliki_kila is offline  
Old 03-03-2011, 10:34 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

So now I'm wondering: how does that all work? Plenty of people sacrificed their lives for love of others during the books - Sirius, for instance. He died protecting Harry, right? Why didn't his sacrifice prevent Bellatrix from hurting Harry? (Well, not that she did, not that I remember, but there doesn't seem to be any implication in the books that she couldn't have...) Or does dying in battle not count - does there have to be a deliberate, conscious choice to die in place of someone else? But then, wasn't Lily's protecting Harry just as instinctive and unpremeditated? I mean, all the anti-Voldemort people who died could be said to have died protecting others in a loving, sacrificial way - Tonks, Lupin, Mad-Eye, Fred - so shouldn't their deaths have given protection to the survivors? What was the "extra" in Harry's sacrifice? Or am I missing something?


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:33 PM
 
Chamomile Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: West of the Sierras East of the Sea
Posts: 2,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post




I ended up in Ravenclaw. Interesting - I did a few of these about 7-8 years ago, and ended up in Hufflepuff every time, except for one that put me in Gryffindor. I'm not surprised I haven't ended up in Slytherin. I lack ambition, any desire for power, and am so far from cunning that it sometimes depresses me. Mind you, I'm not nice enough for Hufflepuff, brave enough for Gryffindor, or smart enough for Ravenclaw, either - I think the Sorting Hat would tell me to leave. :o


Huh, I ended up in Gryffindor. Not quite sure why.

500

This thread totally reminds me that I need to read the whole series over again before the last movie comes out. Especially the ending 'cause I blew through it too fast the first time I read it.
Chamomile Girl is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 07:04 AM
 
ollyoxenfree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

 

Well, no, it's salvation through faith in Christ. Or are you referring to Christ's love and sacrifice?

 

 


 

For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 

 

True, faith is necessary, but also so was/is love and sacrifice. 

 

 

 

ollyoxenfree is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 09:04 AM
 
HeatherAtHome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaliki_kila View Post
Just randomly jumping in on the tail-end of this conversation.  Harry willingly dies and sacrifices his life for all the people inside the castle.  And then when he comes back and he's fighting Voldemort in the castle, he tells Voldemort that none of these people have been hurt by the Death Eaters since the moment he sacrificed his life because his love and sacrifice protected them - just like when Lily died and Voldemort couldn't hurt baby Harry.

 

"You won't be killing anyone else tonight,"  said Harry as they circled, and stared into each other's eyes, green into red.  "You won't be able to kill any of them ever again.  Don't you get it?  I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people -"

 

"But you did not!"

 

"-I meant to, and that's what did it.  I've done what my mother did.  They're protected from you.  Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding?  You can't torture them.  You can't touch them  You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?"

 


Yeah, this. He TOTALLY sacrificed himself and was willing/expecting to die. Remember the stone? And bringing back his loved ones? He was asking if death hurt, what it was like and telling them that he was scared. They comforted him and walked with him to the end. I just remember the deep, heavy sadness. The acceptance of it.

 

 

Quote:
So now I'm wondering: how does that all work? Plenty of people sacrificed their lives for love of others during the books - Sirius, for instance. He died protecting Harry, right? Why didn't his sacrifice prevent Bellatrix from hurting Harry? (Well, not that she did, not that I remember, but there doesn't seem to be any implication in the books that she couldn't have...) Or does dying in battle not count - does there have to be a deliberate, conscious choice to die in place of someone else? But then, wasn't Lily's protecting Harry just as instinctive and unpremeditated? I mean, all the anti-Voldemort people who died could be said to have died protecting others in a loving, sacrificial way - Tonks, Lupin, Mad-Eye, Fred - so shouldn't their deaths have given protection to the survivors? What was the "extra" in Harry's sacrifice? Or am I missing something?

 

I think the difference is that he (and his mother) sacrificed themselves, stood in front of someone else saying "kill me instead", weaponless and not fighting back. It was quite clear that Harry had to offer himself up freely and not try to fight it. 

 

I actually really liked this part of the ending. I hope they do it right in the movie! 

 


Blogging about renovations in our first home
HeatherAtHome is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:25 AM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

So now I'm wondering: how does that all work? Plenty of people sacrificed their lives for love of others during the books - Sirius, for instance. He died protecting Harry, right? Why didn't his sacrifice prevent Bellatrix from hurting Harry? (Well, not that she did, not that I remember, but there doesn't seem to be any implication in the books that she couldn't have...) Or does dying in battle not count - does there have to be a deliberate, conscious choice to die in place of someone else? But then, wasn't Lily's protecting Harry just as instinctive and unpremeditated? I mean, all the anti-Voldemort people who died could be said to have died protecting others in a loving, sacrificial way - Tonks, Lupin, Mad-Eye, Fred - so shouldn't their deaths have given protection to the survivors? What was the "extra" in Harry's sacrifice? Or am I missing something?

This has been one of my biggest issues with the books all along, especially once Voldemort came back and Rowling started describing the effects on the wizarding world. There are parents and children "disappering" all over the place. Are we really supposed to believe that Harry is the only wizard in the world who has had someone sacrifice their life to save his, out of love? It just didn't/doesn't ring true at all.
 

 


Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 10:43 AM
 
beanma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: with the dustbunnies & sugar beans
Posts: 8,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

I don't think the books are great literature and there are many holes throughout the books that you could drive a truck through, but what Rowling is great at is pacing and descriptive details and accessibility. The kids and I were just listening to Chamber of Secrets in the car recently and I found myself wondering what on earth the other teachers were doing while Harry and Ron and Gilderoy Lockhart were rescuing Ginny from the chamber. There are tons of places like that in the books where the motivation just doesn't quite gel for me, but the pacing is so good that you're just carried along with the story and able to leave those little momentary doubts behind.

 

It's possible (maybe) that Harry was just talking trash to Voldy in the final fight scene. When I read it I remember his motivation being to get the Elder Wand since he had defeated Draco it's allegiance was now to Harry and not Voldy. I don't know. I think it could be one of those places that don't quite add up, but if you look at it the right way you can't see the imperfections.

 

As far as the Christ allegory, I'm sure that Rowling knew what she was doing as far as the death/rising again scene with Harry, but I don't really see Harry as a Jesus figure throughout the books. If that was her intention I don't think it worked that well. Now, with the Narnia books — it's been ages since I read them as a kid — but even then it was excruciatingly obvious that Aslan was representing the second coming of Christ.

 

Rowling has a lot of tropes going on in the books. There's Harry as Cinderella in the first books and of course the Jesus bit and then the Nazi stuff. It's really the accessibility (easiest 800 pages I've ever read) and the pacing and the painting of the wizarding world with all the descriptive details (vomit flavored Bertie Bott's beans) that make the books for me.


Mamatreehugger.gif to two girl beans, Feb 2001hearts.gif and Nov 2003coolshine.gif . DH geek.gif, and two crazydog2.gifdog2.gif . Running on biodiesel since 2004!
 
"All you fascists are bound to lose" — Woody Guthrie
beanma is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 12:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
journeymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Having a Gilly Water with McGonagall
Posts: 7,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeatherAtHome View Post

I think the difference is that he (and his mother) sacrificed themselves, stood in front of someone else saying "kill me instead", weaponless and not fighting back. It was quite clear that Harry had to offer himself up freely and not try to fight it.


Thank you for this, I think this is the most adequate explanation I've ever come across.  JKR didn't 'explain' this well, either in the books or in interviews.  It's always chafed that Lily's death conferred protection on Harry, but James' death did not. After all, what was the difference?  I guess the only difference was that James was actively fighting Voldemort, wand in hand, when he was killed, while Lily was completely wandless and helpless.  So she chose to step between Harry and Voldedmort to take the Avada Kadavra.  

 

And Lisa, you're right. Lily can't have been the only parent who purposefully sacrificed herself for her child.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanma View Post

It's possible (maybe) that Harry was just talking trash to Voldy in the final fight scene. When I read it I remember his motivation being to get the Elder Wand since he had defeated Draco it's allegiance was now to Harry and not Voldy. I don't know. I think it could be one of those places that don't quite add up, but if you look at it the right way you can't see the imperfections.

 

Hmm, yes. Blur your eyes. Wear big suspenders for all that disbelief.  I had no idea what was going on with the whole wand ownership thing while I was reading Deathly Hallows.  I still don't entirely get it.  orngbiggrin.gif


Someone moved my effing cheese.
journeymom is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 01:18 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Thank you for this, I think this is the most adequate explanation I've ever come across.  JKR didn't 'explain' this well, either in the books or in interviews.  It's always chafed that Lily's death conferred protection on Harry, but James' death did not. After all, what was the difference?  I guess the only difference was that James was actively fighting Voldemort, wand in hand, when he was killed, while Lily was completely wandless and helpless.  So she chose to step between Harry and Voldedmort to take the Avada Kadavra. 

Ehhh... yes, it probably is the best explanation thus far, but I don't like it. :p I don't see that being helpless makes love and sacrifice any more real. Lily probably knew full well that taking the curse wouldn't actually save Harry (assuming she didn't know about the love-protection thing... and if she did, she wasn't really helpless, just fighting with strategy rather than wands!) - it's not like Voldemort could only use Avada Kedavra once. Just like James probably realised that firing curses at the Dark Lord might repel him temporarily, but that Voldy was stronger and James probably wouldn't win. Both actions smack of semi-reflexive, desperate attempts to prevent Harry being harmed for just a little while longer (in James' case, presumably, Harry and Lily). So yeah, I don't see that the difference "should" be significant. Except that the whole saving-mother-love thing is kind of a neat theme, and that James was a bit of a jerk whereas Lily was a sweetie. :p


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
Old 03-04-2011, 02:39 PM
 
beanma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: with the dustbunnies & sugar beans
Posts: 8,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

Actually, I think James didn't have his wand, either. I don't have the book handy to refer to, but if I recall correctly there was a bit about them being too complacent and not having their wands on them and James being defenseless  against V.

 

As far as the wand thing what I recall on that is that a wand chooses it's owner, like at Ollivander's, but if that owner is disarmed and does not recover the wand then the wand transfers its allegiance to the person who defeated the owner. So Grindelwald came into possession of the Elder Wand and then he and Dumbledore had that historic battle and Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald so the Elder Wand transferred its allegiance to Dumbledore. When Draco did the "expelliarmus" spell on Dumbledore he disarmed him and since Dumbledore never recovered the wand (Snape coming and finishing him off) the Elder Wand's allegiance was transferred to Draco. Then at the Malfoy Manor even though Draco wasn't using the Elder Wand (it being entombed with Dumbledore) when Harry disarmed Draco the Elder Wand's allegiance shifted to him. Another wizard or witch could use it, but it wouldn't perform as well for him or her. So Voldy could use it, but it wasn't as powerful for him as it would be for Harry.

 

I always thought the love thing was a little weak, but, hey, who am I to dis the power of love!! Disbelief suspended in enjoyment of a good story.


Mamatreehugger.gif to two girl beans, Feb 2001hearts.gif and Nov 2003coolshine.gif . DH geek.gif, and two crazydog2.gifdog2.gif . Running on biodiesel since 2004!
 
"All you fascists are bound to lose" — Woody Guthrie
beanma is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 04:39 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Getting OT again, but that's another thing that seriously annoys me about the books. It seems like wizards and witches can't do SQUAT without their wands (apart from dying nobly and thus invoking powers of protection on their infant children, of course). So, Dumbledore loses his wand, and he can't perform the simplest charm. Is that right? Because that just seems kinda... lame... that someone as powerful as Dumbledore would be totally helpless without his little stick. Heck, even house-elves can do magic without wands. I don't like the idea of skill being so closely tied to an object, so that even a really talented witch or wizard needed the object to do anything at all. Obviously that's not a plot hole or anything - just a personal peeve.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
Old 03-04-2011, 06:36 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post

Getting OT again, but that's another thing that seriously annoys me about the books. It seems like wizards and witches can't do SQUAT without their wands (apart from dying nobly and thus invoking powers of protection on their infant children, of course). So, Dumbledore loses his wand, and he can't perform the simplest charm. Is that right? Because that just seems kinda... lame... that someone as powerful as Dumbledore would be totally helpless without his little stick. Heck, even house-elves can do magic without wands. I don't like the idea of skill being so closely tied to an object, so that even a really talented witch or wizard needed the object to do anything at all. Obviously that's not a plot hole or anything - just a personal peeve.



It does come across that way later in the books, and it is kind of a plot hole, or at least a significant inconsistency, because Harry is doing magic in the first book before he ever gets a wand...and the later books show that Lily was, as well.


Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 06:53 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,315
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Oh, yeah, true. And Tom Riddle. I forgot about that. Well, that's... odd. Wait, Voldemort still did magic of a sort before he got a new wand, didn't he? I'm not sure if that counts, what with the Horcruxes and everything, but he mentioned slowly bringing himself back into a kind of physical form... which certainly sounds like magic. Maybe students just get taught to use their wands for extra control or something, and then get used to it and can't "free-flow" magic any more? But Tom was the exception, because he was... special...?

 

The "wand chooses the wizard" thing is also curious. What happens when a wand gets broken, like Ron's? Does another wand "activate"? (Ron did get a new wand eventually, right? So it must have.) What if he bought the wand from the same shop as the first one - does that mean there were two potentially perfect wands there at the time and he just picked the first one based on chance? I guess it's like the true love question - is there only one person for each of us. :p

 

We need to get JK Rowling in a hotbox and ask her all this stuff.


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is online now  
Old 03-04-2011, 07:06 PM
 
Ambystoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Bayou
Posts: 713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

If I recall correctly, this is the reason why non-humans (liked goblins, house elves, etc) weren't allowed wands by the wizarding government. Because they could do pretty much everything they needed to do wandless, giving them wands would make them as powerful/more powerful at magic as wizards. Also, I think wizards can do wandless magic, but most of the time it's not as easily controlled. Like, wizards need an object to focus their magical energy or something. I have read that on mugglenet or somewhere that was supposedly from an interview with JKR, but I may be making that up.....


Kara: on a journey with DH, Mama to DS 2/2010
Ambystoma is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off