Harry Potter

Dreadylocks

Dreadylocks

WARNING: This thread contains spoilers. DO NOT read on unless you have read all 7 Harry Potter books.






So, I want to try and settle a debate my boyfriend and I have about the end of the seventh book.

Was Harry ever dead when he was in 'King's Cross'?

Sean thinks that he never actually died, but that Voldy's killing curse just killed the piece of Voldy. Proof being that he got up and was alive.

I disagree, I say that Harry had to have died because he's a horcrux and in order to destroy a horcrux, as was stated, is to destroy it's shell, which is Harry's body.


Any thoughts from other avid readers? *coughNickcough*
 
Ok...

Harry didn't die.

It's repeatedly stated in the books that necromancy is the one impossibility for magic. Indeed when they finally get the Stone of Resurrection and Harry brings back Sirius, Lily, James and Lupin it's clear that the tales of Beedle the Bard got it right and that they are only shadows of their former selves.

However, what exactly happened in King's Cross is unclear. Dumbledore explains to Harry that the situation is all in his mind, but still manages to dispense useful advice which Harry is to obtuse to get to by himself. The Horcrux within Harry is indisputably dead and yet it appears in King's Cross as a, kind of, living form. So this makes it less clear what has happened.

But basically the same sort of thing that happened when Lily and James were killed happens again in that because Harry sacrifices himself to save everyone at Hogwarts he protects everyone there and thus means that when Voldemort tries to kill him, he instead ends up just killing the piece within him.

That said I don't think anyone can be sure. It's all a little confusing, but I'd be inclined to say that he was never actually dead and that King's Cross ain't my idea of heaven :P
 
I dont know. We can not say one way for sure, like nickclapper said. I think arguments can be made for either side.

I would say head over to a harrypotter/jkrowling/etc forum or something for really detailed arguments abt this. Ive never been to one so unless someone suggests one, use google.

:)
 
Ernest Worthing said:
I dont know. We can not say one way for sure, like nickclapper said. I think arguments can be made for either side.

I would say head over to a harrypotter/jkrowling/etc forum or something for really detailed arguments abt this. Ive never been to one so unless someone suggests one, use google.

:)
Click to expand...

That seems like a bit much just to answer a question as straight-forward as whether or not they get it on. I would think that'd be a simple yes/no question.
 
Damn! I guess I lost this one... :no:

I think the reason it's hard for me to accept that he never died is that either way you look at it, there are a couple holes. Like, how could the horcrux have been destroyed and then left the shell intact?

It was enough for him to just be willing to sacrifice himself to save everyone else from Voldy's powers? Even though he didn't actually have to pay for it with his life?

So maybe it should have just ended with his death, for real...that wouldn't leave any holes. Neville being the hero, getting the girl (Ginny) and becoming instant Minister of Magic. :P


Don't get me wrong though, I don't think I'd actually change a thing about the end, it was perfect. I'm just not used to still being confused about something after I've read it countless times....
 
Ernest Worthing said:
I dont know. We can not say one way for sure, like nickclapper said. I think arguments can be made for either side.

I would say head over to a harrypotter/jkrowling/etc forum or something for really detailed arguments abt this. Ive never been to one so unless someone suggests one, use google.

:)
Click to expand...

lol. I don't want to talk about it with strangers. And I don't think I could handle the intensity of a harry potter board. Too many little kids...
 
I agree, I think he should have died... so, actually, I guess I disagree...

But you could still have written in the diary after it was stabbed by the basilisk fang, if you so wished. I guess the injury that Harry received was the destruction of the little bit of Voldie inside him. Good injury that.
 
Hey I don't judge. I like the movies. In fact, I didn't read the books until after I saw the 5th movie. I just had to know how I ended so I spent 2 weeks doing nothing but reading book 6 and 7.

They were so wonderfully written and more real and engaging than any movie I've seen. I immediately started at book 1 to get all the stuff that wasn't in the movies and read the entire series in a row. They are that good.

So if your movie theater ever closes due to some nasty bed bug infestation, now you know what you should read :)


PS: Deathly Hallows the movie looks pretty badass and exciting, especially considering I like to (lovingly) call the book 'Harry Potter and the Extended Camping Trip.' :P
 
When Voldermort used the killing curse on Harry it not only killed him, but it also destroyed the Horcrux. Because of the Horcrux basically getting in the way, and because Harry faced death knowingly and willfully, the curse didn't just kill him straight up. Harry was dead, but he sacrificed himself, thereby fulfilling the prophecy that either he must kill Voldermort or Voldermort must kill him, and because of this he was able to choose between 'going on' and going back to life. King's Cross is like that median plain, between here and 'on'. Remember how Nick tells Harry Sirius will have 'gone on' at the end of the fifth book. That disgusting baby like figure was the fragment of Voldermort's soul that had been inside Harry, personified because it was no longer connected to him.
When he woke up he wasn't coming back from the dead, which as Dready pointed out, is impossible, because he never truly accepted that he was dead. He didn't 'go on', he came back because he had to. Not just because he was the only one who could end Voldermort, but because he knew and Dumbledore knew that it just wasn't his time.
I hope that makes sense.
Other people would disagree completely, but that's one of the wonderful things about Harry Potter, there are so many different interpretations and views. Everyone picks up on different things and it means something personal and private to every single reader.
So yeah, that's just what I think :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top