Posts: 37
Threads: 342
Joined: Feb 2004
Harry having a bit of vold's soul has been set up since the first book. Not so much a deus ex machina.
I'll agree with some of the deaths and also the wand bit to an extent. I liked the down time in the middle of the book though, it was good to have breather in between action, plus I liked the feeling of them being hunted and not knowing what the fuck they were doing.
Posts: 33
Threads: 344
Joined: Nov 2004
I do agree, I wish Remus and Tonks' deaths had been fleshed out. Leaving two of the most vital and vivid characters to such a flimsy death scene (if you could even call it that) just felt icky. Seems like a cop-out on Miss Rowling's part.
I dunno, I don't really think Dumbledore was a douche. I mean, he's human. From the get-go, we thought, "Alright, this guy's got his shit together," then we steadily find out that he's not actually as great as he's set-up to be. It's a beautiful letdown, but I don't think he's that horrendous at all.
The wand bit though, yeah. It made sense while I was reading it, but on second thought, all that DOES seem a bit fishy.
Posts: 0
Threads: 114
Joined: Jun 2007
Goblin Wrote:Harry having a bit of vold's soul has been set up since the first book. Not so much a deus ex machina.
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.
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.
Posts: 0
Threads: 114
Joined: Jun 2007
Android 14 Wrote: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.
Like I said, if you could just blast out the soul like that then AK would work on the inanimate objects. The explanation of a Horcux in the book would mean that Harry's body was the Horcrux, so Voldermort would have to destory Harry to destory the Horcrux.
But that obviously didn't happen since he was alive. The Horcux doesn't have a soul, it's casing whatever it's sealed in is it's soul. That's why the Locket, the Book, etc beat with life and why they were so hard to kill.
J.K. Fell, couldn't think of a better way and fudged through it.
Android 14 Wrote: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.
Malfoy disarmed him and left, he never claimed the Elder wand, hence the failing in that part of the story. Also, Harry stole Malfoy's original wand from him, not the Elder Wand that Voldermort pilfered from Dumbledore's grave. The Elder wand shouldn't give it's negligence to anyone other then Malfoy in that case because it was never taken or won from him.
It's poor, lazy writing on J.K.'s part.
Android 14 Wrote: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.
I think it was okay, but it was rather rushed and poor in some parts. Far from her best writing.
Josh Wrote:Like I said, if you could just blast out the soul like that then AK would work on the inanimate objects. The explanation of a Horcux in the book would mean that Harry's body was the Horcrux, so Voldermort would have to destory Harry to destory the Horcrux.
But that obviously didn't happen since he was alive. The Horcux doesn't have a soul, it's casing whatever it's sealed in is it's soul. That's why the Locket, the Book, etc beat with life and why they were so hard to kill.
J.K. Fell, couldn't think of a better way and fudged through it.
Well, I perhaps missed a few things there. The thing is that Harry did die, Voldemort did kill him. But in some weird, twisted way, Harry was able to return because of the bond Voldemort created between them by taking his blood, and thus While Voldemort lived, so did Harry. So, in reality (and hindsight for what I said before) Harry's boy WAS killed, and his soul did depart, but was pulled back by the bond that kept him alive as long as Voldemort was alive.
Josh Wrote:Malfoy disarmed him and left, he never claimed the Elder wand, hence the failing in that part of the story. Also, Harry stole Malfoy's original wand from him, not the Elder Wand that Voldermort pilfered from Dumbledore's grave. The Elder wand shouldn't give it's negligence to anyone other then Malfoy in that case because it was never taken or won from him.
It's poor, lazy writing on J.K.'s part.
That said, Draco didn't need to claim it as his own, the wand just needed to recognise him as its new master. Snape didn't defeat Dumbledore, because it was already arranged between them, so the wand would not have changed allegiance to Snape anyway. As for Harry taking Draco's other wand, he still overpowered him, which was enough for the wand to change allegiance again. It was all about the act of defeating the owner, more than taking the wand from them. As Harry said to Voldemort; "Just posessing the wand isn't enough".
I'll admit it doesn't make too much sense when you read it for the first time, but after thinking a bit it made sense to me, at least
Posts: 23
Threads: 148
Joined: Aug 2005
This just bothered me. >.>
Go to page 268. Then compare the date of birth of Harry's parents, their age, and then the year they died.
Anyone notice anything fishy?
Piccolo Daimoun Wrote:This just bothered me. >.>
Go to page 268. Then compare the date of birth of Harry's parents, their age, and then the year they died.
Anyone notice anything fishy?
Nope. They died on the 31st of October (Halloween), 1981 at the age of 21 having been born in 1960. Nothing fishy really...
Posts: 23
Threads: 148
Joined: Aug 2005
Piccolo Daimoun Wrote:It said died THIRTY one. O.o
That isn't the age, that's the date of death. 31st of October, 1981. It's an English writer, so the date goes DD/MM/YYYY
EDIT:
Posts: 23
Threads: 148
Joined: Aug 2005
I realized that now.
I EDITED FOR A REASON. /cries and runs flailing his arms
I posted it before you edited it
|
