Beyond Hogwarts

Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
Harry Potter Spelling Reference

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:  <<  <  77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 96)

What happens to someone who has been defeated in a duel? does he/she use some wand which has not chosen him or some second wand CAN choose him?

Posted by Apoorva from India on May 31, 2009 09:46 AM

In The philosopher's Stone, Quirell TOUCHES harry in the leaky Cauldron. on pg 55 "'P-P-Potter,' stammered Professor Quirell,grasping Harry's hand." Then why isnt he burnt there? What happened to the love protection?

Posted by Apoorva from India on May 31, 2009 09:53 AM

on pg 233 of cos, tom marvolo riddle tells harry " 'Both half-bloods,orphans, raised by muggles' " but how can that be? hary wasnt a half blood harry's mom was a witch so that makes him a pure blood. but voldemort's dad was a muggle that makes him a half-blood not harry!

Posted by Apoorva from India on June 10, 2009 04:26 AM

Actually, Harry is a half-blood. If a witch or wizard has muggle grandparents, then he or she is considered a half-blood. Harry's grandparents on Lily's side were muggles, so Harry is not a pureblood. His father, James, was a pureblood.

Posted by Anonymous from Arizona on June 12, 2009 08:55 AM

When Quirrell touched Harry in the Leaky Cauldron he wasn't possesed by Voldemort yet. He says later that his master desided to keep a closer eye on him after he failed to get the stone from gringotts. Thats why he could touch Harry

Posted by Eva from Denmark on June 27, 2009 12:12 PM

What happened to Lavender Brown? In DH, it only says unmoving Lavender Brown, but she is not on the list...

Posted by aranel on July 1, 2009 12:28 PM

Hey guys, I love Harry Potter - especially the new movie that just came out... left a bit out but still brilliant.

I have 1 question that consistently bothers me.
In Prisoner of Azkaban, Hermione receives a Time Turner from professor McGonagall. My question is, why doesn't harry use this Time Turner to go back in time to when his parents are ed and to prevent voldemort from ing them?
I understand he would have to live in that time for a number of years before returning to the present, but isn't that a huge loophole in the novel?

I still LOVe the series.

Posted by Alon from Melbourne, Australia on July 16, 2009 04:03 AM

The time-turner was never shown to be a long-range device. The only time we've ever seen it used, it's only gone back a few hours. The most of the time Hermione used it, she only went back one hour at a time. There's no reason to believe you could use a time turner to go back many years...

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on July 16, 2009 10:50 AM

When Dumbledore s at the end of the 6th book he is sort of in possession of all 3 Hallows I think. He undoubtedly has the Elder Wand. He was in possession of Gaunts ring as well. The cloak also is with him which he uses to shield Harry when Draco and the Eaters attack Hogwarts. If this is the case then Dumbledore was the Master of the ly Hallows at the time I think. Then how come he d?

Posted by Labeeb from Bangalore, India on July 17, 2009 04:21 AM

He wasn't really the master of the invisibility cloak, was he? That was the property of Harry Potter.

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on July 18, 2009 7:04 PM

Dumbledore says to harry that "Maybe a man in a million could unite the Hallows, Harry. I was fit to possess the meanest of them, the least extraordinary." Then, later on the same page, "You are the true master of , because the true master does not seek to run away from (DH, pg.720) This means that Dumbledore was not the true master of , and even if he was, would not be invincible, because the true master does not seek to run away from .

Posted by aranel on July 23, 2009 12:44 PM

There is a question. We know, Dumbledore as well as Voldemort, both trust Snape. And Snape's true loyalty was to Dumbledore. So how can it be possible that Voldemort never understood Snape's true loyalty? As far I know, Voldemort was supposed to be the greatest legilimence in the world (told by Snape to Bellatrix in HBP). He could detect any lie or secret. So what thing made Voldemort to trust Snape blindly? Wasn't he ever confused about Snape?

Posted by Arman from Bangladesh on July 30, 2009 12:42 AM

Pages:  <<  <  77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  >  >>

Featured Discussions | The Septology | Harry's World | Harry Potter Movies | Dumbeldore Is Not Dead | FAQ is not affiliated with or approved by
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury, Warner Bros., or J.K. Rowling
Original Content Copyright © 2006-2010 David Haber, All Rights Reserved