07-30-2007, 03:44 PM
Josh Wrote:Yes it has, but you have to destroy the thing that is the Horcrux, if you could just Avada Kedavra the soul away then you could have simply done that with all the Horcrux to begin with instead of physically destroying them.
Well, you can't really kill an inanimate object can you? The idea, I think, is that by trying to kill Harry he instead killed the bit of his soul in Harry- which didn't belong there. Had he have used Avada Kedavra on Harry again, he would have killed him. You're not actually killing the soul, you're releasing it from the shell, body or object, by killing or destroying the object. You release a person's soul by killing them, and you release the horcrux by "killing" the object.
Also, if Draco disarming Dumbledore didn't make sense, because he wasn't dead, then what about Grindlewald stealing the want, and Dumbledore taking the wand from Grindlewald after he was defeated (but not dead). As Olivander said, the wand chooses the person; you have to win the wand's allegiance before it will work fully for you, and by defeating and taking it from it's owner you do so... Be it by death or by disarming.
Yeah, too much tent.
As for Dumbledore... I think he was both ashamed and determined not to let his past mistakes get in the way of trying to save everyone from Voldemort. He knew he asked much of Harry, without asking him, but he did also give great sacrafices himself just to stop Voldemort from attaining the Elder Wand.
Tonks and Lupin dying was pretty sudden, in a bad way. But Fred dying was for shock value. Someone so very close to Harry just got suddenly killed in front of him, so soon after Dobby and in the midst of their bid for victory. Probably one of the things that made him so determined from there on.
Yeah, not to shit on your opinions, I just don't really agree
I really liked the book, I think it was her best, for lots of different reasons.