Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows discussion thread (SPOILERS) - Page 10

omgitsmatt · #91 07-23-2007, 07:14 PM

That makes a lot more sense. Hurrrr I'm a reading comprehension donkey.

NoMeansYes_ · #92 07-23-2007, 07:54 PM

When Snape does his patronus when he and dumbledore are talking in Snapes memory and dumbeldore says, "all this time?" was great.

What book did we find out that Lily Potters patronus was a doe though?

Jazzy3113 · #93 07-23-2007, 08:09 PM

There are a few things that have been bothering me since I finished the book.
I will start with the first. We find out Snape was actually loyal to DD and he was remorseful for what he did. However, was he? In the pensive it seemed he only cared for Lily and no one else. Isn't that just being extremely covetous and selfish?
But anyway he has been helping Harry the whole time. But then explain the final fight scene in HBP. He is yelling at Harry and hurting him, because Harry called him a coward. And from the writing in the book it seems he was really hurting harry, losing control, and definitely going to kill Harry until Buckbeak showed up.
So what is your take? He walked a narrow line between hate and love with Harry? Was it all an act? What was the point of not telling Harry Snape was an ally? Their occulemncy lessons were a disaster. Snape argued with everyone in the order, but never betrayed them. I just dont get it. He was helping those who loathed him. Even if he survived the final battle of Hogwarts who would he have loved with? He never would have fit in with the "good" guys. Something doesnt seem to fit for me. What am I missing?

traz · #94 07-23-2007, 08:20 PM

Snape wanted revenge on Voldemort for what he did to Lily, and he wanted to protect Harry from death, so that Lily's death was not in vain. His intentions were definitely selfish, and the books mentions this anyways.

When Harry called him a coward, of course it angered him, when he basically betrayed Voldemort to make sure Harry wouldn't die. Not for Harry, but for Lily.

gharp · #95 07-23-2007, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think you misread it.

It seems to me that Snape is consulting the portrait Dumbledore (pg. 688). Snape got the information "-from the source we discussed" (pg. 4) when he informs Voldemort about the date of Harry's depature from Privet Drive.

I think Snape was concerned about whether he could inform Voldemort about the actual date Hary was leaving. Telling the truth may have put Harry's life in too much jeopardy. The portrait Dumbledore is emphasizing the need to remain in Voldemort's confidence. So, it suggests Snape must report the accurate date to Voldemort.

It's not clear who came up with the idea of the decoys. It sounds like something which has been discussed before. The portrait Dumbledore seems to have concluded that Voldemort must be told the truth and decoys used to give Harry a chance to escape.

Remember, Mundungus Fletcher was in Azkaban at the end of Book 6. Presumably, he escaped during the mass breakout between books which also liberated Lucious Malfoy. It's not hard to see him playing both sides. That's in his nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
All right, I can buy all this. It seems like we have to infer a bit more than usual to get here -- maybe some parts got edited out. Or maybe I just don't read well. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

gharp · #96 07-23-2007, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
iirc Dumbledore says something regarding Harry having the Resurrection Stone which is why he didn't die, but I may have skimmed through that part. I think what it came down to was that he was prepared to die and sacrifice himself for everyone, which is why he got shipped off to Limbo or whatever you want to call it, where he then had the choice to either move on with Dumbledore, or to stay and fight.

[/ QUOTE ]
I went back and re-read this too. I think Harry doesn't die because when Voldemort used his blood to regain his body in Book 4, he transferred Harry's mother's protection into him. So as long as the protection survives (which it does within Voldemort), Harry will survive.

PokrLikeItsProse · #97 07-23-2007, 08:37 PM

Here is a feminist review of the book. I find utterly hilarious the amount of moaning in the comments about the author wickedly cutting off the opportunities for post-book 7 non-hetero fanfic.

GBP04 · #98 07-23-2007, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iirc Dumbledore says something regarding Harry having the Resurrection Stone which is why he didn't die, but I may have skimmed through that part. I think what it came down to was that he was prepared to die and sacrifice himself for everyone, which is why he got shipped off to Limbo or whatever you want to call it, where he then had the choice to either move on with Dumbledore, or to stay and fight.

[/ QUOTE ]
I went back and re-read this too. I think Harry doesn't die because when Voldemort used his blood to regain his body in Book 4, he transferred Harry's mother's protection into him. So as long as the protection survives (which it does within Voldemort), Harry will survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep, I think this is correct. And Voldemort effectively killed Harry's body which destroyed the Horcrux, but Harry couldn't really "die" because of his mother's protection. That explains Dumbledore's gleam of triumph at the end of Goblet of Fire.

jjshabado · #99 07-23-2007, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
6- The epilog was nice in parts, but I wish had touched up more on other characters. I wanna know how George is doing w/o Fred?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you? It would have come off as unrealistic if he got over quickly and painlessly, and extremely depressing if she went realistic and talked about how much he grieved. I'm happy she didn't touch on it or the other deaths in detail at the end. It just wouldn't have been worth it.

traz · #**100** 07-23-2007, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iirc Dumbledore says something regarding Harry having the Resurrection Stone which is why he didn't die, but I may have skimmed through that part. I think what it came down to was that he was prepared to die and sacrifice himself for everyone, which is why he got shipped off to Limbo or whatever you want to call it, where he then had the choice to either move on with Dumbledore, or to stay and fight.

[/ QUOTE ]
I went back and re-read this too. I think Harry doesn't die because when Voldemort used his blood to regain his body in Book 4, he transferred Harry's mother's protection into him. So as long as the protection survives (which it does within Voldemort), Harry will survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep, I think this is correct. And Voldemort effectively killed Harry's body which destroyed the Horcrux, but Harry couldn't really "die" because of his mother's protection. That explains Dumbledore's gleam of triumph at the end of Goblet of Fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. Voldemort killed his own soul in Harry, but he could never kill Harry's body unless he himself was dead. His mother's protection is gone and no where in this picture.