Search Beyond Hogwarts:
The Aftermath: We were all correct
by David Haber
Sometime a week before Book 7 came out, someone commented that Harry would die, but then come back. I think most everyone on the site thought it was a silly idea. But I told several people at that time that I thought that just might be the perfect solution, although I couldn't figure out how J.K. could make it work. J.K. did, of course! So, the half of the Harry Potter fans in the world who thought Harry would die were right! And the other half who thought he would live were also right!
> Read the full article
Pages: << < 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 ... > >>
Reader Comments: (Page 77)
I am surprised that there is no talk about the fact that Harry is the heir of Slytherin. In book 6 Morvolo Gaunt shows the ring as proof that he is the heir of Slytherin through the Pervells. In book 7 Harry remembers this. Later in book 7 Harry discovers that he is the heir to the Pervells with the cloak. Dumbledore reiforces this theory in Kings Cross Chapter and again when Harry says he keep the cloak in the headmaster's office. Albus says it is his to pass on to his kids. If Riddle and Potter are both related to the Pervells, they are related to each other. This is clear to me, yet no one is even mentioning it anywhere. It could help explain a lot. Why Voldy thinks, unconsciously, Harry is the bigger threat between him and Nevelle. Why the conection is so great, etc. Please help out here I don't get it.
Posted by Brad from Lake Zurich on August 15, 2007 10:37 AM
This is a question that simply cannot be answered for sure given all the information in the books. J.K. says Harry was NOT an heir of Slytherin. Tom Riddle (who IS an heir of Slytherin) and Harry are related through the Peverells, but very distantly. It is likely (although the books don't tell us for sure) that Slytherin and the Potters descended from DIFFERENT Peverell brothers, which would mean Harry and Tom are like very, very distant cousins...
Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on August 15, 2007 5:02 PM
Brad, Dave: Harry is probably a cousin (very distant, distant, or close) of most of the wizards we see. Anyone has two parents, four grand-parents, and it would come to already a million ancestors, at the 20th generation (5 centuries ago), if there was no marriage between cousins. If you go back enough time in the past, two distant persons are likely to share at least one ancestor, and since the wizarding community is much smaller than the Muggle community, wizards must share a lot of common ancestors.
Harry could very well be a heir of Slytherin, although there is nothing that proves it. I'm not totally sure, but think Marvolo Gaunt never said that the ring came from a Slytherin's descendant. He said that he got the ring from Peverell, and that meant he was the heir of a very old pure blood wizarding family.
Posted by herve from strasbourg on August 16, 2007 01:02 AM
I read the seventh Harry Potter book, and I have to say, overall, I was very impressed. The epilogue was kinda cheesy though, in my opinion, but the rest of the book was full of many elements that make books great. For example, I really enjoyed the union of Ron and Hermione, which I have been predicting since book three. The (sort of) of Harry was a great element to throw in the book, and kept many readers guessing. I think Harry, Ron, and Hermione have matured a lot since the last book or couple of books, and I also think the fact that the three friends working together to find and destroy all the horcruxes was awesome. Although I'd LOVE the series to continue, I know there won't be any more books, despite what the rumors say. I hope this series continue to enthrall lots of kids of all ages in the future.
Posted by Becca from Longmont, CO on August 16, 2007 7:51 PM
If Voldemort was related to the Peverells, then he would have been related to the second brother, as we all know.
But the second brother didn't really have children! Unless the woman he brought back from the whom he loved somehow brought forth a child, it isn't likely that Voldemort is related to the Peverells at all. What probably happened is that, like the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone was stolen after the second brother's , but afterward it was passed through the family of the thief.
And even if Voldemort is related to the Peverells, Salazar Slytherin probably came after the three brothers and is, like Voldemort, a distant cousin to Harry. Let us not forget that in those times, one's true heir was his or her oldest son (or daughter, if there were no sons to be had). So Harry wouldn't really qualify for the heir of Slytherin, even if he is related to him.
Posted by C.J. from Utah on August 17, 2007 11:11 AM
I am rereading for um-teenth time CoS, I just noticed that when Harry came out in Borgin and Burkes in Knockturn Alley accidently when he first used the floo powder. He hid in the vanishing cabinet, he saw Malfoy looking at the hand of glory and saw the cursed necklace, all three of which Malfoy uses in HBP. i also read something i never took notice of on page 124 it says -- Nearly Headles Nick took several deep breaths. ghost can't breath right, their .
The who's the master of the wand thing is confusing, but if when Voldemort's curse backfired on him when he first tried to Harry in the SS, even if Harry was too young and had no wand, would that still make him the master of the wand? would that also be why Harry's wand overtook Voldemorts wand in GoF, causing voldemort's wand to expell it's spells last to first? I know that both of their wands had Fawkes' phoenix feathers, that the wands did priori incantatum, but Harry's wand overpowered Voldemorts. Would that be because Harry was the master of Voldrmort's wand? Where was voldemort's wand all those years he was vanquished? I still think that it was the wand Wormtail used to blow up the street with.
Posted by Pamela sue from ark on August 17, 2007 8:57 PM
Pamela: you are right about the vanishing cabinet in CoS. But even more: remember that in HBP Draco was trying to repair the one in Hogwarts? Well, in that same book (CoS), when Harry was punished in Filch`s place, Nearly Headles Nick told Peeves to throw that same vanishing cabinet through the stairs, then it broke down.
And of course everybody remembers that Fred and George uses it (OotP) to "vanish" Montague.
That`s Rowling, she often used situations or objects from older books.
Posted by Go Snape go from buenos aires on August 19, 2007 9:23 PM
After reading all the books several times, I can't help notice one thing. Gryffindor and Slytherin are naturally centred throughout the series. We also learnt quite some bits of Ravenclaw; main charaters like Cho, Luna and even the interesting way of entering their common room and the story about the diadem and the Grey Lady and Bloody Baron. But what about the Hufflepuff? besides Cedric? The cup of Hufflepuff was simply acquired by Hepzibah in some way and that was it. There's not even any special description to it, unlike the other horcruxes. We didn't even witness the destruction of it. Hermione simply said Ron opened the CoS and she did it while all the other horcruxes had the privileges of a detailed description of their destruction. (well, we didn't read about how the ring was destroyed by Dumbledore, but we kinda knew how it happened in DH and its significant consequences - Dumbledore's .)
And of all the people that involved in the destroying of horcruxes; Harry, Dumbledore, Ron, Hermione, fiendfyre by Crabbe unintentionally and Neville. (We can't really count Voldemort for the 7th horcrux since it was never intentionally created or destroyed.) Basically they are all from Gryffindor. Why does JKR glorify bravery so much (Gryffindor signifies bravery basically) over the other qualities like wits (Ravenclaw) and loyalty (Hufflepuff)? I think the series is more about love and choices. I just feel a bit uneasy as seems Hufflepuff has been treated unfairly by JKR.
Posted by Fiona from Hong Kong on August 20, 2007 1:54 PM
Fiona from Hong Kong:
I don't think JKR treated Hufflepuff unfairly. Nor did she glorify bravery (she pointed out that wits are a good thing too). It's just that bravery and loyalty are very important, and knowledge is something that anyone can obtain, ignore, or disregard. Like Dumbledore said: "It's not our abilities that make us who we are, but our choices." JKR has to point out that ss and talent don't matter as much as how we use them.
And I thought Hufflepuff was a house for someone who wasn't brave, smart, or having (and caring about) pure blood. Not that Hufflepuff isn't just for average people, Cedric Diggory was really great, and he was in Hufflepuff. But since Hufflepuff is more about fairness and including everyone, no one in that house seems to stand out enough to really want to take place in the HP series. But even so, there are many people in the books who we don't know which house they're in. Kingsley Shacklebolt might have been in Hufflepuff. Maybe even Tonks or Ollivander. The point is, Harry doesn't really have much to do with Hufflepuff, because he's in Gryffindor and none of his close friends (he didn't know Cedric well enought to count as a close friend) or biggest enemies were in Hufflepuff, that house never really played as big a part as the other houses did in the books.
And as I was reading HBP, I noticed that even though Trelawney is a fraud (except that she has made prophesies in her - subconsciousness, I guess) she actually foresaw Dumbledore's ! When she lays out the cards, she sees a lightning-struck tower. Even though she constantly foresees doom, this seems very odd, even for Trelawney. Not to mention her name is the same as some mythical people who saw into the future. What's with that?
Posted by C.J. from Utah on August 20, 2007 10:39 PM
Hi everybody, I'm a 36 year old Harry Potter fan and I reread the DH-book from page 439 after visiting this website. I was amazed by all that was predicted correctly on this site.
In the Kings Cross scene, I think we all agree that the 'creature' was the 7th Horcrux, the book says so. But I don't think it was just Voldy's soul . I think the creature was Harry as a baby. That part of Harry was carrying the Horcrux since the moment he survived Voldy's ing curse about 16 years ago. And I think that part of Harry (Harry as a baby and Voldys Horcrux) was lying there at Kings Cross, slowly fading away. It could never have been Voldy's whole soul, cause Nagini was still alive and so was Voldemorts own body, although I'm not sure his own body still contained part of his soul.
The Kings Cross Chapter was, I believe, the best. Dumbledore was just so admirable, recognising and acknowledging his own weaknesses, which makes him a great man and a great and wise wizard. I'm not sure whether Dumbledore had a high opnion of Snape. He had faith in him (Dumbledore knew of Snape's love for Lily), but I got the feeling that Dumbledore thought Snape to be a bit sad and even weak. Read page 577/578 of DH ending with 'Poor Severus...'. It sounds to me that Dumbledore deliberately sacrificed Snape. With that in mind read those last words again: 'Poor Severus...'. It sounds ingenuine and ironic, as if Dumbledore thought that Snape had it coming. Even though Dumbledore says that this bit of his plan did not work out in the next few sentences, I think he didn't really like Snape as a person.
Posted by Diederik from Netherlands on August 21, 2007 09:29 AM
In PS, the sorting hat described the qualities of people to be sorted into different houses. "You might belong in Hufflepuff where they are just and loyal, those patient Hufflepuffs are true." (U.K. p.130) So as you said, bravery and loyalty are very important, so Hufflepuff-loyalty should be more important than wit as in Ravenclaw. Afterall, what makes Ron and Hermione so good as Harry's best friend is their loyalty to Harry, not really their talents.
Well, I think I read somewhere that Tonks was in Hufflepuff, at least. Nonetheless, I still think there should be more to Hufflepuff than Ravenclaw.
And you are right, Trelawney did see that taro card of lightning struck tower and she wanted to warn Dumbledore of the danger drawing nearer, though I bet she didn't "see" the of Dumbledore, nor she actually believed it herself. About Trelawney, I only know about the "Jonathan Trelawny" and "Edward Trelawny" of Cornwall and the Cornish anthem usually knows as "Trelawny". JKR is from Chepstow, so I bet she knows all about Jonathan Trelawney who was a Bishop of Bristol. Which mythical people you are referring to? would love to know as I am always intrigued by all the names JKR picked up from various sources, and usually have their underlying meanings to it.
Posted by Fiona from Hong Kong on August 21, 2007 10:54 AM
Go Snape Go from Buenos Aires noted that JKR seeded her earlier books with points which became important later. I just reread SS, and there is a scene where Harry is reading his Magical Herbs and Fungi book, and reads about "dittany." A throwaway comment, but it became a critical substance in Books 6 and 7.
Posted by et from the wild west on August 21, 2007 11:43 AM
Pages: << < 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 ... > >>