|
Post by sapphire on Aug 3, 2007 19:14:58 GMT -5
I feel an urge to continue, even though I am not sure what I am saying, so please feel free to talk amongst yourselves while I pontificate. Harry made the same choice his mother did, although on a larger scale, in a way. Her choice, while admirable, was somewhat--and don't get me wrong, it's spectacular--selfish, in that she couldn't stand the thought of her son being killed, while for Harry, it was for all of wizardkind that he was willing to give up his life. Would Lily have made that sacrifice for just anyone? Harry truly is an amazing being, I think. So, if Harry's willingness to sacrifice himself brought him a second chance at life, would Lily have been given that same choice? I don't know. Also, one of the other BIG themes in this series is how our choices show what we really are. Not sure where I am going with this, but...there it is.
|
|
|
Post by sapphire on Aug 3, 2007 19:26:10 GMT -5
"Now as to why, the killing curse didn't kill him, I am as flummoxed as anyone else. I feel that Harry was definitely dead once the curse hit him." Says Bng. But, on page 707 Jo writes: " 'But you're dead, said Harry. 'Oh, yes,' said Dumbledore matter-of-factly. 'Then...I'm dead too?' 'Ah, said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. 'That is the question, isn't it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.' 'Not?' repeated Harry. 'Not,' said Dumbledore.
|
|
|
Post by sapphire on Aug 3, 2007 19:31:03 GMT -5
Wouldn't Harry have survived the AK this time for the same reason he survived it last time--the protection he received from his mother's sacrifice? Dumbledore hints that there is more to that protection than Voldemort realized, that, had he known, he would never have dared to touch Harry's blood. Perhaps it is similar to the agony Voldy experienced when he tried to possess Harry at the end of OOTP. I think I am done now. This is a really complex story, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by * amanda on Aug 3, 2007 22:12:34 GMT -5
I haven't reread the book yet, so I'm just going on my 1st read over a week ago. The way I saw the story was a combination of several elements and two different circumstances: the first time he went to Voldy, and his 2nd time - the battle with him.
What protected the pure, non-Horcrux part of Harry the first time around was that Harry was wholeheartedly ready to die for wizardkind; he thus had a tremendous amount of magic on his side which granted him a protection that no intention of Voldemort's could ever overpower. (I don't think his mother's blood was a part of this equation; I had the impression that this defensive magic wore off when he turned 17). It was this will that protected his soul while the killing curse destroyed the horcrux in him. However, the experience of having a bit ripped out of him is what plunged him into a sort of purgatory; an intermediary state, where he was able to interact with Dumbledore.
When Harry chose to walk back into the action, the wand didn't work for Voldy. It didn't rightfully belong to him. The wand, when Voldy made his strike, was less functional than usual. It rightfully belonged to Harry. Harry possessed two wands: one that he was holding, one that Voldy was holding.
Harry won, by sheer brilliance and the use of two forms of far more sophisticated magic than Voldy could comprehend:
Voldy's own ignorance of sophisticated magic, magic based on merit and self-sacrifice, was what killed him. Harry merely set the right conditions for him to be a victim of this ignorance.
And by the way, how cool was it that Harry ended it with "expelliarmus"? I love how this was foreshadowed back in OotP.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 4, 2007 9:53:44 GMT -5
OK, just read the first five chapters again. Moody's death really got to me this time, as was Arthur hurrying into the Burrow and kneeling next to his injured son... Oh, and the 'Selwyn' Death Eater was mentioned again. I really want to know if that's a relative of Umbridge.
Anyway, I also read the part of Harry's wand shooting gold flames to Voldemort (speaking of gold, isn't it awesome that Harry's polyjuice has a golden color). I went to the chapter King's Cross after reading it and read some sentences really fast. DD explains the wand thing by saying that during the Priori Incantatem the wand got some power from Voldemort and that the wand recognized Voldemort and therefore acted against it. DD also says it involves the deepest laws of magic (or something like that). I still don't really get this. I hope Jo will explain everything more properly on her website soon...
Richard
PS In OotP the movie, there is this part just before the six leave for the Ministry were Hermione says something about Ron being really smart by doing the candy trick with Draco and co. Ron then says: 'Yeah, it's been known to happen'. In book 7, Hermione says something similar and Ron says, grumpily, 'Always the tone of surprise'. I liked these similarities, probably because I think Ron in the OotP movie really is Ron, not some stupid sidekick. It's like the first HP-movie, ever since the first, where Ron isn't just there for comic relief! About time...
|
|
|
Post by sapphire on Aug 4, 2007 11:06:46 GMT -5
Hiya MUGWUMPS. Amanda, what a concise and intelligent summary! Well done. My only addendum is that Harry did not lose the protection of his mother's sacrifice at 17--that was when the spell that Dumbledore cast keeping him safe at the Dursley's ended. His mother's magic endured, as Dumbledore explains: "A part of his soul was still attached to yours, and, thinking to strengthen himself, he took a part of your mother's sacrifice into himself. If he could only have understood the precise and terrible power of that sacrifice, he would not, perhaps have dared to touch your blood....But then, if he had been able to understand, he could not be Lord Voldemort, and might never have murdered at all." (pg710 AE) Question for Fins: Where does Hermione say that bit about needing remorse with Horcruxes? Not saying it isn't there--saying I can't find it.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 4, 2007 11:48:21 GMT -5
Sapphi, I just read that part! It's in chapter 6, 'The Ghoul in Pyjamas', where Hermione explains how she Accio-ed the Horcrux books.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Fins on Aug 4, 2007 13:55:35 GMT -5
Page 103. Although I'm not sure it talks about using a horcrux to put yourself back together or making your soul whole again.
|
|
|
Post by sapphire on Aug 4, 2007 17:49:02 GMT -5
Thanks for that! I can't really tell, either, Kevin. But, if Voldy couldn't reunite all the parts of his soul, what was the purpose of the Horcruxes? What exactly dwelt within those Horcrux keepers? Say all but one was destroyed? Would that one part be enough to make you a functioning being? I remember Riddle in COS using Ginny's life energy and becoming more and more solid. If he had defeated Harry at that point, would he have become a real person? This goes back to the question of what parts of the soul are split off--what is contained in the missing pieces. It's such a strange concept, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by sapphire on Aug 4, 2007 17:52:55 GMT -5
Richard, I like the Eurpopean version: "pyjamas" so much better than our boring "pajamas." I wish they had left it alone in our books. You would think that Voldy would have a really good plan to get himself back together before taking such a big step, wouldn't you? And, say one of the Horcruxes did manage to become a living being with a physical body--would it be invincible?
|
|
|
Post by blackngold on Aug 4, 2007 20:50:33 GMT -5
I think all the horcruxes had the ability to take on some form of limited life. Since Ginny put so much of herself into the diary, that bit of soul became very strong and certainly indicated that it could become "human" again. Similarly, the locket seemed to suck some of the "life force/essence" out of the trio so that it could make its last ditch defense before Ron destroyed it.
|
|
|
Post by * amanda on Aug 4, 2007 21:53:41 GMT -5
Whoa - I think that's the first time I ever made any summary concise on here! Thanks for the amendment, sapphi. I missed that comment the first time around. The way in which his mother's sacrifice infused with his blood makes sense and makes it a well-rounded story because the central theme does, indeed, seem to be that of self-sacrifice and love and those who understand that power vs. those who do not.
As for pyjamas vs. pajamas, I really do wish they'd left that alone. The Ghoul in Pyjamas is such a funnily-spelt phrase that it really adds character to the entire chapter. As this was the first time I read the British version before the American, I don't know what other changes may have been made. I think I asked this before - but in the American version, are there two quotes in the front of the book?
Finally, another random thought that my family and I were discussing today. Is HP a kids' series? With the string of deaths in book 7, I question the publisher's decisions to label it as such. I don't think solid literature should be watered down for the sake of appealing to a certain market. Nor should children ever be prohibited or discouraged from reading good literature. But should HP, considering the string of deaths in the final chapters of the series, have been marketed as a children's book, or should it have had its place on the adult literature shelves from the start?
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 5, 2007 5:02:13 GMT -5
But, if Voldy couldn't reunite all the parts of his soul, what was the purpose of the Horcruxes? Voldy never wanted to unite his soul again. Because if he did so, he became mortal again and that was the last thing he would want to be. Richard
|
|
|
Post by sapphire on Aug 5, 2007 16:36:58 GMT -5
Hiya MUGWUMPS. True, Richard! What a stupid plan. Rather than live his life out as a whole person, he chose to depend upon survival in any form, even with a torn and unstable partial soul. Never a good idea, eh? Amanda, there are two lovely and interesting quotes at the front of the American Edition. I was thinking as I watched OOTP today that this definitely isn't a kids' story. It isn't graphic, but it's terribly intense and could be frightening for young children. One of my ex-students was a big fan of HP and saw the first 3 movies, but, because his mother is quite responsible, she went to see GOF without him and decided that it was too intense for a 5 year old. She thought the underwater scene was too scary, so imagine how the graveyard one would have seemed. In my view, Harry Potter became an adult book in that scene, too. That's the one that left me breathless and appalled. OOTP would definitely be out of the question for anyone under about erm..12 or so, depending on the child. The part where Voldy materializes in the DOM is pretty darned creepy, and when the words are inscribed on Harry's hand, I just wanted to jump out of my seat and strangle Umbridge. The themes that Jo writes about are really deep, but one thing I love about this being classified as a "children's book" is that she doesn't either preach or mince words, but makes a powerful case for doing what is right instead of what is easy and how each of us has the amazing power to choose our behavior, in a way that both adults and children can appreciate. How often does that happen?
|
|
|
Post by blackngold on Aug 6, 2007 7:19:39 GMT -5
I have to hand it to JKR for increasing my vocabulary. With HBP, it was fug. And now with DH, it is diadem. I was doing the crossword on the train into work and needed a 6 letter word for tiara. The answer was right on the tip of my tongue.
Speaking of fug, if I were filming that scene, I would have Harry wake up and then spell fug on the window.
|
|
|
Post by blackngold on Aug 6, 2007 7:25:47 GMT -5
Another sign that DH at least was not a kid's book comes right in the first chapter - the use of the wand as a phallic symbol. Voldemort makes fun of Lucius' wand (short and not rigid) to the general laughter of the DE's. Later Ron talks about the book that Fred and George gave him "It's not all wand work you know." Much later in the book, there is a discussion between the trio about wand size.
|
|
|
Post by * amanda on Aug 6, 2007 10:27:15 GMT -5
Another sign that DH at least was not a kid's book comes right in the first chapter - the use of the wand as a phallic symbol. Voldemort makes fun of Lucius' wand (short and not rigid) to the general laughter of the DE's. Later Ron talks about the book that Fred and George gave him "It's not all wand work you know." Much later in the book, there is a discussion between the trio about wand size. OK, thank you. How many times did the word "wand" come up in a suggestive/phallic way? There were several. The most obvious of the times was in the first chapter, as BG mentioned. We can interpret this according to the two ways in which phallic symbols are usually used in art (I'm referring in particular to Dutch or Italian art, as those are the arts that I studied most thoroughly): one is potency, abundance (as in a harvest of grain), and strength. Could work for Harry. --> This is more of a traditional/classical interpretation of the symbol, stemming from pre-Christian Roman imagery and beliefs. Another way, however, is that they can symbolize worldly possessions and objects. Things that lead to arrogance and blindness for what is truly important. Forces and items that cause an individual to value worldly objects and be tempted with worthless desire above more virtuous causes. Now that sounds like Voldy! --> This is definitely a predominate use of the symbol in Christian art, particularly protestant Dutch art during and after the Renaissance + inquisition era. But... to a 13 year old reading this book? I doubt they're going to pick up on that, and I'm not sure how much parents or teachers will appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 6, 2007 11:49:28 GMT -5
Another sign that DH at least was not a kid's book comes right in the first chapter - the use of the wand as a phallic symbol. Voldemort makes fun of Lucius' wand (short and not rigid) to the general laughter of the DE's. Never got that one before! What did you all think of Norberta? Oh, and what about Luna's bedroom? Richard
|
|
|
Post by sjr0301 on Aug 6, 2007 16:36:16 GMT -5
Well, I just finished my first re-read of DH.
We finally know what the gleam of triumph meant when Dumbledore found out about Voldemort using Harry's blood in GoF. If I read it right. Dumbledore guessed that Harry's blood in LVwould double the connection between the two but that it would function almost like a Horcrux. So long as Voldemort lived, Harry would not fully die.
Also, JK certainly wrapped up the prophecy cleverly. Either "died" at the hand of the other - Harry first by Voldemort in the forest, and Voldemort second by Harry at Hogwarts. And neither could live while the other survived because their minds and souls were becoming too closely intertwined for either to survive whole at the same time.
In the webchat, JK answered the question as to why Voldemort had stopped blocking out Harry by Occlumency: he was no longer able to because he was losing control - the connection was growing deeper the longer it persisted.
Of course, I still don't quite understand why the horcrux in Harry didn't take him over. It does not seem to have been isolated or encapsulated in his scar as some theorized, but it was not truly integrated into him either as it could be killed when he "died." Tricky jk, to make Voldemort kill his own horcrux while trying to kill Harry, yet let Harry survive because he voluntarily allows Voldemort to try to kill him fully expecting that he will die.
The only flaw I see in the book as a whole is that we don't get any clue of Snape's ultimate loyalty until the one long outpouring of his memories. I thought for sure there would be some scene in which Snape and Harry actually confront each other. It also took me the second read to realize that Snape's last words - "Look at me"- were his wish to look on Lily's eyes at the last. that was really quite poignant.
|
|
|
Post by sjr0301 on Aug 6, 2007 16:37:06 GMT -5
And I laughed out loud at Norberta and at Aberforth's Patronus.
|
|