How in the world did Harry...(spoilers Deathly Hallows)

OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
hey while we're all here talking about Deathly Hallows, does anyone mind explaining to me whether it was the possession of the Deathly Hallows themselves that protected Harry from Voldermort's killing curse, or was it the fact that the killing curse only killed the part of Harry that had been made a Horcrux by his mom's spell? I thought it was the latter, but if that's the case, then I've always wondered what the point of the Deathly Hallows was? I discussing this with my partner the other day and she couldn't give me a definitive answer, so if anybody here could explain it to me that would be great
What really saved Harry was him being the owner of the Elder Wand, which wouldn't kill its master and instead rebounded to its attacker. I guess it decided horcrux Voldy would do instead of Voldy proper in the forest. Otherwise it would have killed both Harry and the horcrux.
 

SunBroDave

Member
Oct 25, 2017
977
What really saved Harry was him being the owner of the Elder Wand, which wouldn't kill its master and instead rebounded to its attacker. I guess it decided horcrux Voldy would do instead of Voldy proper in the forest. Otherwise it would have killed both Harry and the horcrux.
Because Harry had disarmed Malfoy? Ok then what was the point of the whole Deathly Hallows story about cheating death if you have all 3?
 
OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
Because Harry had disarmed Malfoy? Ok then what was the point of the whole Deathly Hallows story about cheating death if you have all 3?
A fable and not terribly important outside of establishing that once upon a time, Dumbledore too was a power hungry fool chasing at shadows for a title that was ultimately nothing. The artifacts are powerful but not the godly gifts Dumby and Grindelwald worshipped them as. Voldemort only prized the Elder Wand for its killing power even, he couldn't care less about the cloak or the Resurrection stone.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
What really saved Harry was him being the owner of the Elder Wand, which wouldn't kill its master and instead rebounded to its attacker. I guess it decided horcrux Voldy would do instead of Voldy proper in the forest. Otherwise it would have killed both Harry and the horcrux.
It might also be possible that the Elder Wand allowed a Killing Curse to be directed at Harry in that instance, because Harry (the wand's master) was allowing himself to be killed by Voldemort. Voldy said that he'd kill everyone in Hogwarts if Harry didn't submit to an execution, and Harry came to terms with that and was okay with ending his own life, so Harry gave himself up, without any resistance.

Which is presumably how the sacrifice spell works. If Party A (Hogwarts) is guaranteed to die, and Party B (Harry) is guaranteed to be safe, but Party B (Harry) loves Party A (Hogwarts) and steps in to take death in their place, then that can create a love-powered ancient magic protection spell, and the Grim Reaper will not allow the Killer (Voldy) to harm Party A (Hogwarts). It's not Party B's fault that the Killer sucks at killing so much that he can't even kill someone who is standing right there, even authorizing them to use their own wand for the kill. Party B (Harry) held up his part of the bargain, so the spell still works.

One of the possibilities is, the Killing Curse is a 100% certain death spell. But Harry had 110% soul (since he was Voldemort's Horcrux). So the Killing Curse first killed Voldemort's soul fragment, and then made Harry 90% dead/10% alive. Harry's soul saw the afterlife, but he was given the choice of staying down and falling into a 100% dead state, or putting in some effort, struggling to get back up, and pulling himself back to a 100% alive state. It's also possible that this choice was a bonus attributed to Harry's "Master of Death" status.

It's also possible that being the "Master of Death" makes Harry literally immortal. It might be possible that Harry can't die. You could kill him as many times as you want, and he'll keep getting back up. Or maybe he'll just keep getting back up so long as he keeps on choosing to get back up.

There's a lot that's unclear about these things.
 
OP
OP
Zen

Zen

Member
Nov 1, 2017
3,339
As far as I can tell the master of death is just an ascribed title that bears no magical power. Harry threw away the Resurrection stone after talking to his family and the cloak provides no particular extra ability pertaining to being hit by AK
 

Aaron

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,463
A fable and not terribly important outside of establishing that once upon a time, Dumbledore too was a power hungry fool chasing at shadows for a title that was ultimately nothing. The artifacts are powerful but not the godly gifts Dumby and Grindelwald worshipped them as. Voldemort only prized the Elder Wand for its killing power even, he couldn't care less about the cloak or the Resurrection stone.
Hell Dumbledore admitted they didn't even care about the Cloak, they only wanted it to unite the Hallows but had no use for it. Their purpose for collecting the Hallows was world conquest after all - the Wand would ensure they were unbeatable and the Stone would let them raise an army of the dead (and for Dumbledore, bring his parents back so he wouldn't be burdened by his siblings anymore), and the Cloak was just the other part of the legend. Fitting when you consider in the story the brother who created the Cloak was the only one who didn't meet an unfortunate end, but instead got to die of old age and pass it along to his son.
 

Gigglepoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,632
I've read Deathly Hallows a half dozen times and I still tear up if I even think doubt Harry walking to the Forbidden Forest alongside the spirits of his parents. It's just masterful storytelling.

I think Rowling showed she was fallible in The Goblet of Fire (easily the weakest of the books despite having some incredible moments) but she rebounded incredibly with the final three books. I'm still in awe that with the expectations of the world on her shoulders, she was able to deliver such outstanding material not only in a timely manner but in a way that goes far beyond anything I could have expected.

We're so used to the series at this point that I think we take it a little for granted. It really is a monumental achievement.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,604
As far as I can tell the master of death is just an ascribed title that bears no magical power. Harry threw away the Resurrection stone after talking to his family and the cloak provides no particular extra ability pertaining to being hit by AK
The only way to tell would be to kill Harry a couple more times, for science.
 

Aaron

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,463
I've read Deathly Hallows a half dozen times and I still tear up if I even think doubt Harry walking to the Forbidden Forest alongside the spirits of his parents. It's just masterful storytelling.

I think Rowling showed she was fallible in The Goblet of Fire (easily the weakest of the books despite having some incredible moments) but she rebounded incredibly with the final three books. I'm still in awe that with the expectations of the world on her shoulders, she was able to deliver such outstanding material not only in a timely manner but in a way that goes far beyond anything I could have expected.

We're so used to the series at this point that I think we take it a little for granted. It really is a monumental achievement.
It's definitely something that speaks to me more as an adult than it did as a kid reading them.

I remember thinking Order of the Phoenix was the worst one for a long time, and while I still find a lot of the Harry angst to be annoying (like I get it and it's totally justified in the narrative, but also as a reader it reaches a point of wanting him to stop screaming in all caps for a page), there was a part near the end where Dumbledore points out how Voldemort exploited Harry's relationship with Sirius as something between a father and a brother, and I'm just sitting in my car listening to the audiobook and feel a lump in my throat like damn, that really sums up the tragedy of it all, doesn't it?
 

callamp

Member
Oct 27, 2017
304
hey while we're all here talking about Deathly Hallows, does anyone mind explaining to me whether it was the possession of the Deathly Hallows themselves that protected Harry from Voldermort's killing curse, or was it the fact that the killing curse only killed the part of Harry that had been made a Horcrux by his mom's spell? I thought it was the latter, but if that's the case, then I've always wondered what the point of the Deathly Hallows was? I discussing this with my partner the other day and she couldn't give me a definitive answer, so if anybody here could explain it to me that would be great
Harry survived the killing curse for the same reason he survived the first time: Lily's sacrifice. When Voldemort used Harry's blood in his resurrection he ensured that Harry could not die by Voldemort's hand. Only when Voldemort died did Lily's sacrifice also die. Voldemort never realised this because he was profoundly ignorant of this line of magic.

The Deathly Hallows and Harry's usage of them says more about his state of mind than anything else. He was fit to be the 'Master of Death' because of how he chose to use the Hallows not because they were in his possession.