Did Harry Die? Was It Necessary?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Did Harry Die? Was It Necessary?

Post  Elanor on Sat May 28, 2011 2:45 am

Did Harry Die? Was It Necessary?

This topic serves as an archive of a thread from the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum as hosted on World Crossing which ceased operation on April 15, 2011. Elanor

Kip Carter - Jul 23, 2007 5:15 pm
co-Host with Steve on the Lexicon Forum, but he has the final say as the Owner!
Edited Sep 26, 2007 4:14 am

This thread is to discuss Did Harry Die? Was It Necessary?. This was suggested by Madam Pince.
avatar
Elanor
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 1440
Join date : 2011-02-19
Age : 44
Location : France

Back to top Go down

Did Harry Die? Was It Necessary? (Post 1 to 44)

Post  Elanor on Sat May 28, 2011 2:46 am

Madam Pince - Jul 23, 2007 7:01 pm (#1 of 44)
The eyes are the windows to the soul...
...And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives...

On the "Eating Crow" thread about things that we got right or wrong, Madam Pomfrey posted this:

Harry will vanquish Voldemort without having to die himself.(RIGHT)

Now, I considered that Harry did die, albeit only temporarily, when Voldemort AK'd him in the forest and Harry did not fight back. I thought the whole "King's Cross" scenario was sort of like "Heaven's Waystation" if you like -- a place for the dead, but not really the final destination. In other words, you have to be dead to get there.

Not only that, but Harry had to die, in order to kill the flayed-baby-looking thing (the soul-bit piece of Voldemort that was living inside him) in order for Voldemort to be vanquished and the prophecy fulfilled.

I'm not picking on you, Madam Pomfrey, I know you may have been meaning he didn't have to die permanently, or whatever. Anyway, it occurred to me that people might have different viewpoints of what exactly happened to Harry there in that scene. Any thoughts?

- - - - - - - - - -
Puck - Jul 23, 2007 7:18 pm (#2 of 44)

Mommy, Queen of Everything
I don't think he was dead, just "mostly dead", as Miracle Max would say. Kind of the opposite of what happened to LV in Godric's Hollow. LV retained conciousness in the phyical word, but left his body. Harry stays with his body, but moves to a different plain of conciousness.

The curse did managed to kill the soul bit.

- - - - - - - - - -
Julie Aronson - Jul 23, 2007 7:22 pm (#3 of 44)

Actually, to make a comparison that many in the outside world have also made, Harry died a "Buffy" death. I just finished all seven TV years of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the similarities (without seeming copied, mind you!) are endless.

- - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jul 23, 2007 7:39 pm (#4 of 44)

Bullheaded empiricist
He just wasn't brain dead. He was dead on the table and was resuscitated.

He was dead but did not pass over. If he had had a true Horcrux only his soul would have been anchored to the world and his body would have been lost, and thus we would have had Vaporharry sticking out of the back of Snape's head. But instead his blood was magically connected to the real world so that when he chose not to pass over he didn't become a ghost, because Voldemort's rebodification spell kept Harry's body alive.

Clear as mud, right? In other words a Horcrux anchors the soul, but Harry's body was anchored instead. That's my take on what happened.

Was it necessary? JKR could have changed her plot ten years ago before she published SS/PS, but when it came time to write DH it was far too late to change.

- - - - - - - - - -
geauxtigers - Jul 23, 2007 7:47 pm (#5 of 44)

Yum!
I re-read that part because I was a bit confused as well. So now that I've read it again, heres what I think happened:

Mostly dead is a good way to put it. He isn't dead, but he was AK'ed, so he went to a heaven-like place. I think its a bit like the gates of Heaven. Dumbledore tells Harry that he has a choice to go on or go back. "I think if you decided not to go back, you would be able to...let's say...board a train." "And where would it take me?" "On," said Dumbledore" (page 722)

As to why he didn't die, Dumbledore explains this, I only really caught what it meant after a second re-read. I was so distraught about him being dead that I realized how much I missed!

"He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survuves, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself." (DH pg 710)

In short, it was necessary for Harry to think he was going to die because he needed to do it bravely, he needed to sacrifice himself for it to work. When Harry questions Dumbledore about it, how he just let hom kill him, DD responds with "And that will, I think, have made all the difference" (pg 708). Harry is still alive because of his sacrifice and Lily's. As to why he goes to "King's Cross", I think because he was hit with the AK, it killed the Horcrux, and now that its gone, Harry can return.

- - - - - - - - - -
Puck - Jul 23, 2007 7:56 pm (#6 of 44)

Mommy, Queen of Everything
So, why did LV have to AK Harry himself for all this to work? DD told Snape that was very important. If anyone else killed Harry, he still would have been anchored by his mother's blood, right? And anyone can destroy a horcrux, so why was it so important for LV to do the honors?

- - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jul 23, 2007 8:01 pm (#7 of 44)

Bullheaded empiricist
Puck, perhaps Lily's sacrifice only protected Harry from Voldemort and not anyone else. So, for anyone else to destroy the Horcrux would have killed Harry as well. Just a guess, but I think a good one (with all of Dumbledore's false humility).

- - - - - - - - - -
geauxtigers - Jul 23, 2007 8:12 pm (#8 of 44)

Yum!
I think Tom is right. They shared the same blood, remember Dumbledore's gleam of Triumph? That is what anchored Harry to earth, so only Voldemort could kill Harry for it to work. Wow this is confusing...

- - - - - - - - - -
Puck - Jul 23, 2007 8:13 pm (#9 of 44)

Mommy, Queen of Everything
Thanks! That makes sense.

- - - - - - - - - -
Finn BV - Jul 23, 2007 8:20 pm (#10 of 44)

Me kayaking, Niagara River, August 2006. I have been likened to Reepicheep in this photo.
So… **tries to straighten things out** Voldemort taking Harry's blood into him meant that the protection Lily gave through her sacrifice lives on, because her blood now runs in Voldemort's veins? But Petunia's still alive, and the sacrifice was to expire when Harry turned 17, which he is when Voldemort "kills" him.

Why is the sacrifice still working?

And, if Harry had chosen to "take the train" and gone on, would that mean that Voldemort's soul would have gone back, thus infesting Harry and creating TWO Voldemorts?

- - - - - - - - - -
geauxtigers - Jul 23, 2007 9:40 pm (#11 of 44)

Yum!
Finn, I think the sacrifice with Petunia was just for the house. As long as Harry could call Privet Drive home, then Voldemort cannot touch him there, in the place where his mother's blood dwells. Its different since Voldemort has Harry's blood, the sacrifice and magic is still in his viens. Turning 17 didn't mean suddenly he didn't have his mother's protection. He still has her protection, but its not the same as what he had a Privet Drive. The protection until he was 17 was the house, but now whats left of it (lack of better words) is still in him. He no longer has Petunia's protection. Am I making sense? Anybody else care to have a go? I'm starting to get confused myself...

- - - - - - - - - -
Madam Pince - Jul 23, 2007 9:54 pm (#12 of 44)

The eyes are the windows to the soul...
You know, Agatha Christie wrote very nice mysteries, and she never made anything this complicated...

OK, Finn, you almost got me there, but I think Tori is right: we're talking about two separate things here. 1) Lily's sacrifice -- was done by Lily and doesn't have an "expiration date" on it, whereas 2) The charm or whatever it was around 4 Privet Drive was set by Dumbledore, and he made it effective wherever "Lily's blood dwells" (ie: Petunia; I assume this was done in case Vernon ever got transferred to Grunnings' Edinburgh office or whatever), and this is the protection that expires when Harry hits age 17.

- - - - - - - - - -
geauxtigers - Jul 23, 2007 10:06 pm (#13 of 44)

Yum!
Madame Pince, you explained it way better than I did! LOL Thanks! I was hoping someone would get what I was trying to say and explain it better! LOL I've never been a very good explainer...s'long it makes sense in my head...LOL

- - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jul 23, 2007 11:30 pm (#14 of 44)

I have got to do a reread.My take is that the A.K. killed the horcrux but not Harry because Voldemorts having Harry's blood acted as an anchor. Didn't Dumbledore tell Harry what he was experiencing was in his head?

- - - - - - - - - -
Ms Amanda - Jul 24, 2007 1:15 pm (#15 of 44)

I think it was important that it was Voldemort that AKed Harry in the sense that Harry dying willingly would protect people against Voldemort. Or at least that's what Harry says.

I've read a theory by Nan that says that the flayed baby is Voldemort, not the soul-bit. But if it is all in Harry's head, and Dumbledore confirms that it is, then it must be the soul-bit.

However, Dumbledore repeats that Harry is not dead. He'll say Harry is not quite dead or something like that, but he really tries to establish with Harry that Harry is not dead. Close to it, able to choose it, but not dead.

I am beginning to think that the AK backfired. Voldemort and Harry are both knocked out. Voldemort and Harry come to at exactly the same moment --- no, that totally won't work because there was no immediate charm on Harry to protect himself.

Let's try again.

The AK was taken by Harry, and it killed the soul-bit, the Avada Kedavra curse being apparently a method of destroying horcruxes in a living being. It would have killed Harry, too, except that Voldemort had made himself a reverse-horcrux for Harry. His body couldn't be made entirely dead because part of his blood was living inside Voldemort. So while Harry's soul could choose to go on (Voldemort's apparently couldn't have), Harry could also choose to leave the station and go to the body again.

So, my question now is "Why was Voldemort knocked down?" None of the spell backfired, as Harry apparently took one for the team. Did the weirdo wand effects cause Voldemort to fall?

- - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jul 24, 2007 2:17 pm (#16 of 44)

Ah,the wand.That is another reason why the AK wouldn't have killed Harry,only the soulbit that wasn't his.The elder wand recognized his master,therefore didn't kill him. Maybe Voldemort collapsed because Harry did.They were still bound by the soul and mind at the time of the AK impact. Wow,this can be very confusing.

- - - - - - - - - -
Veritaserum - Jul 24, 2007 3:01 pm (#17 of 44)

Go Jays!
I agree with those who have stated that Voldemort having Harry's blood makes him a reverse Horcrux, or a body horcrux, that kept Harry's body alive should he choose to go back to it.

Some people had stated that the elder wand did work this time because Harry wanted to die, thus it was obeying its master.

- - - - - - - - - -
Nan B - Jul 24, 2007 3:28 pm (#18 of 44)

Ms Amanda said: I've read a theory by Nan that says that the flayed baby is Voldemort, not the soul-bit.

No, that's not quite it. The three entities that we see in "King's Cross" are Harry's soul, Voldemort's soul (the flayed baby), and Dumbledore's soul. Voldemort's soul shows up as a single entity because it is, in fact, a single badly damaged soul, even though it happens to be in two parts at that moment. The flayed baby can't be the soul-fragment that had been in Harry, because that soul-fragment had just been killed by the AK curse.

The AK curse had come close to killing Harry. Perhaps it was because he had come so close to death, or perhaps it was because Harry had activated (is that the right word?) the stone-Hallow, but for some reason, when Harry was nearly killed, he was aware when he reached the threshold to the After Life (which he perceived as being like King's Cross). He had to make a choice, whether to go on to the After Life (in other words, to die) or whether to go back and continue the fight against Voldemort. He chose to go back and fight.

I think that, in some way, all souls are present in that plane of existence at all times, but are not normally aware of it. That is why Voldemort is there, because his soul (like all others) is there, but he (and other still-alive souls) is not aware of being there. Harry, however, is aware of Voldemort because Voldemort is the most important thing to Harry at that time - because Harry is trying to defeat Voldemort.

But if it is all in Harry's head, and Dumbledore confirms that it is, then it must be the soul-bit.

Dumbledore said that it was in Harry's mind, not in his head. What is the mind, anyway? The ancient Egyptians believed that the mind resided in a person's heart, not in their brain or head. Dumbledore's statement is not in contradiction to my theory at all.

- - - - - - - - - -
Madam Pince - Jul 24, 2007 9:04 pm (#19 of 44)

The eyes are the windows to the soul...
The flayed baby can't be the soul-fragment that had been in Harry, because that soul-fragment had just been killed by the AK curse.

Why not? If what we're seeing in King's Cross is Dumbledore's soul, well, we know Dumbledore had been killed by an AK curse, right? I would think that, given your parameters for what King's Cross actually is (which I agree with and sounds good to me!), then the just-killed soul fragment from Harry would be exactly what should be there. So Harry's not really dead (the Wand wouldn't kill him) but the AK killed the soul-bit instead.

However, I can almost equally buy into the idea that the AK worked because the Elder Wand obeyed its master and its master wanted to die, and so therefore it killed both Harry and the soul-bit inside Harry. Voldemort was knocked unconscious because when he AK'd "himself" (the soul-bit inside Harry) he was already in a very weakened state (his soul is very diluted by this time since almost all his horcruxes are toast), so it was sort of like punching himself in the nose (if he'd had one.) But although Harry was "dead," he was able to choose to come back because some of his blood was still in Voldemort, and Voldemort though very weakened was still alive in "our" world.

Yeah, that's sounding more like it...

This is so confusing...

- - - - - - - - - -
Phoenix - Jul 24, 2007 9:10 pm (#20 of 44)

Nicola Mlynek
I think that, in some way, all souls are present in that plane of existence at all times, but are not normally aware of it. That is why Voldemort is there, because his soul (like all others) is there, but he (and other still-alive souls) is not aware of being there. - Nan B.

That is a very fascinating concept! I've not heard that before, but I do like it alot. I had been thinking in terms of a NDE, or Near-Death Experience. Because Voldemort was on the ground, it seemed to me the curse hit Harry, and rebounded back to Voldemort. (Of course, there's no way to know unless JKR tells us.) I assumed both were experiencing the NDE, and that's why Voldemort's soul was there. I don't know how much anyone knows about near death experiences, but the body need only be 'clinically dead' for seconds, and people have reported amazing experiences on the other side that can feel as if it lasted for hours or just seconds. Many are given the choice to go back to their body, or go on. Harry's experience is so similar to what I've read on them, that I automatically went with this idea.

However, I do think there is truth to your theory as well. Lots of things have happened when people are just unconscious. Thanks for posting that idea - it's given me more to think about.

- - - - - - - - - -
virginiaelizabeth - Jul 24, 2007 9:30 pm (#21 of 44)

SPCA : Society for the Promotion of Cat Attire!
I assumed both were experiencing the NDE, and that's why Voldemort's soul was there.

I like this explaination a lot.I think what we are seeing in Kings Cross is an imprint of both Harry and Voldemort's souls. Harry's soul is whole and complete, and so his soul imprint is whole and complete. Voldemort's soul has been torn and destroy and is no longer whole, so the imprint we see is just the same, incomplete, thus it shows up as something revolting.

- - - - - - - - - -
Madam Pince - Jul 24, 2007 9:33 pm (#22 of 44)

The eyes are the windows to the soul...
Ooooo! That's interesting, Ginny!

- - - - - - - - - -
Magic Words - Jul 24, 2007 9:35 pm (#23 of 44)

I can't buy that Voldemort was knocked out because his Horcrux was killed, because he didn't have any reaction to any other Horcruxes, even Nagini.

I'm not sure if this idea works entirely, but see what you all think of it: the blood protection normally acts as a barrier that absorbs the impact of an AK. Since Voldemort and Harry both contain the blood, however, the impact of the AK is split halfway between the both of them.

- - - - - - - - - -
Madam Pince - Jul 24, 2007 9:39 pm (#24 of 44)

The eyes are the windows to the soul...
Good point about no reaction to Nagini, Magic Words. If he was weak before, he was even weaker when Nagini died, so you'd think he would've at least passed out again.

Hmmmm. Maybe he really did die.

I'm never going to get to sleep tonight...

- - - - - - - - - -
virginiaelizabeth - Jul 24, 2007 10:15 pm (#25 of 44)

SPCA : Society for the Promotion of Cat Attire!
I thought about that too Magic Words, but the only thing I can really come up with is that because they shared blood, Voldemort felt the horcrux inside Harry when it was destroyed. Dumbledore tells us that he doesn't think that Voldemort feels when his Horcruxes are destroyed, because those bits of soul have been detached for too long. Yet there was a blood connection between the soul bit inside of Harry and the one inside of Voldemort, and this connection allowed Voldemort to feel it as it was destroyed, so it affected both of them. Make sense?

- - - - - - - - - -
Phoenix - Jul 24, 2007 11:11 pm (#26 of 44)

Nicola Mlynek
Voldemort's soul has been torn and destroy and is no longer whole, so the imprint we see is just the same, incomplete, thus it shows up as something revolting. - Virginiaelizabeth.

--It is revolting, and sad, I think. Isn't it interesting that LV's soul is represented in spirit as an infant? From childhood on, LV stuck with his ideas that power and control were the answers to avoiding the inevitable - death. He never accepted life on its terms. Consequently, he never grew. And in murdering others and ripping his soul, he flayed himself.

Anyways, I do see your point regarding the horcrux in Harry and the sharing blood. It does seem plausible... hmmm...time to rethink again!

- - - - - - - - - -
Anna L. Black - Jul 27, 2007 1:07 am (#27 of 44)

Ginny, yes - it makes sense

I think that the AK did several things - it killed Harry, in the sense that his soul now went to "Kings Cross". By killing Harry, the horcrux in him was destroyed, and LV's soul bit (LVSB from now on) also went to "Kings Cross". But, as Harry's body was not actually killed (because LV had his blood, and the effect was like a horcrux for Harry's body), Harry had the choice whether to go on or go back. Now, LVSB didn't have a choice of its own - it was already ripped from both LV's body (so he doesn't control it) and from Harry's body (to whom it didn't belong anyway). So, LVSB was at Kings Cross together with Harry's soul, but when Harry chose to go back, LVSB was left behind, and since Harry was actually controling what happened, this leaving behind was equal to getting rid of it for good.

Regarding LV's unconsciousness - it really makes sense to me, but I'm not sure I can put in in words. But I'll try: Voldemort and Harry were connected both in body and in soul - both of them had a bit of Voldemort's soul and a bit of Harry's body (and Lily's protection). So, when Voldemort AKd Harry, he attacked both his own soul and the body he had a bit of. So, in a way, until Harry made a choice, Voldemort was in the same state as Harry was (somewhere between a death and life). As soon as Harry returned, leaving LVSB behind, Voldemort awakened as well.

I'm afraid I wasn't too coherent, but this stuff is really mind-boggling

- - - - - - - - - -
Luna Logic - Jul 27, 2007 3:32 am (#28 of 44)

from the other side (of the Channel)
Your post was very coherent for me, Anna L Black!

- - - - - - - - - -
PatPat - Jul 27, 2007 4:14 pm (#29 of 44)

Me too, Anna. That's exactly how I saw it. The baby at "King's Cross." was, IMO, not Voldemort himself, but the soul bit that was in Harry. The AK was able to separate Harry from this soul bit. Harry had a choice to return or go on. The soul bit, which foreshadows what will happen to the piece of soul left in Voldemort, has no choice but to remain where it is. Neither able to move on nor go back. A fate worse than death.

Harry and Voldemort were connected on three levels, by mind, soul, and body (because of Harry's blood). The AK, therefore, acted on both Harry and Voldemort. Harry had a choice. Voldemort was dependent upon Harry's choice. He had no options of his own. He was connected to Harry in a way he never foresaw.

- - - - - - - - - -
legolas returns - Jul 27, 2007 4:35 pm (#30 of 44)

The creature sounded to me like the one that Wormtail dumped in the cauldron prior to Voldemorts rebirthing e.g a single piece of Voldemorts soul with an elementary body.

- - - - - - - - - -
Finn BV - Jul 28, 2007 12:28 pm (#31 of 44)

Me kayaking, Niagara River, August 2006. I have been likened to Reepicheep in this photo.
Neither able to move on nor go back. A fate worse than death. --PatPat

Aha! How interesting! I was a bit disappointed coming off the initial read of the book, because Voldemort's main soul bit, the part in him, just died "the normal way". But I suppose you're right -- the rest of his soul, especially this bit, suffered worse. Funny -- he actually suffered eight fates.

- - - - - - - - - -
geauxtigers - Jul 28, 2007 3:07 pm (#32 of 44)

Yum!
I really like that too, PatPat! That would be a fate worse than death. Jo is so clever! I really like that interpretation.

- - - - - - - - - -
PatPat - Jul 28, 2007 3:53 pm (#33 of 44)

Thanks, Finn and Tori! To me, it is something like what Nearly Headless Nick describes to Harry about being a ghost. He says that he is "neither here nor there." He is neither alive or dead. Not truly alive but not able to move on either. I see Voldemort's fate as even worse than this because he is not even able to interact with others. He is stuck forever halfway between life and death. <>

- - - - - - - - - -
freshwater - Jul 28, 2007 9:11 pm (#34 of 44)

Connections, speculation, discussion: the best part of HP reading! Check out the on-going HP Lex Forum series re-read! Currently reading GoF...
PatPat, your explanation (post 29) of LV's fate worse than death is brilliant! I was rather baffled and disturbed by DD's lack of concern for the strange infant while I was reading that part, and didn't pick up on that at all....thanks!

- - - - - - - - - -
PatPat - Jul 29, 2007 8:55 am (#35 of 44)

Thanks, freshwater! Actually, I credit our discussions here on the forum. It always makes me think deeper about the stuff that I read.

- - - - - - - - - -
Phoenix - Jul 29, 2007 9:09 am (#36 of 44)

Nicola Mlynek
Pat-Pat and Anna L. Black - Wow! What a brilliant analysis! I really believed the baby was Voldemort, but after reading this, I totally agree with you. It makes perfect sense. And, oh my gosh, what a horrible fate... definitely shivers...

- - - - - - - - - -
PatPat - Jul 29, 2007 9:11 am (#37 of 44)

I agree, Phoenix. Terrible fate. And, thanks.

- - - - - - - - - -
Phoenix - Jul 29, 2007 9:22 am (#38 of 44)

Nicola Mlynek
I got thinking about the 8 fates/deaths. The number 8 symbolizes infinity/eternity. For the man who feared death above all else, he created worse than death for himself for eternity...JKR sure knows how to make a point!

- - - - - - - - - -
Celestina Warbeck - Aug 6, 2007 10:16 am (#39 of 44)

Excellent point about the fate worse than death. *shivers*!

From what it seemed to me, when LV AKd Harry, the immediate effect should have been on the body. However, Harry's body did not just die because it was tethered to Lily's protection, which now continued to live on in LV, even though he had come of age. I suspect LV did not realize this. AK however had the effect of ripping apart Voldemort's soul from Harry's. This is where Harry's soul, now pure, had the choice of whether or not to return. The baby in King's Cross did appear to the bit of LV's soul that was in Harry, which was finally destroyed by LV's curse himself.

- - - - - - - - - -
Madam Pince - Aug 12, 2007 5:05 am (#40 of 44)

The eyes are the windows to the soul...
The soul bit, which foreshadows what will happen to the piece of soul left in Voldemort, has no choice but to remain where it is. Neither able to move on nor go back. A fate worse than death. --PatPat

I think you've got it! JKR confirmed in her webchat that this is essentially what is there at King's Cross, and that it is forced to remain there in that form for eternity.

Jon: Since voldemort was afraid of death, did he choose to be a ghost if so where does he haunt or is this not possible due to his horcruxes

J.K. Rowling: No, he is not a ghost. He is forced to exist in the stunted form we witnessed in King’s Cross.

She doesn't really go into specifics of whether or not Harry actually died, though. She did say this:

Elisabeth: In the chapter of kings cross, are they behind the veil or in some world between the real world and the veil?

J.K. Rowling: You can make up your own mind on this, but I think that Harry entered a kind of limbo between life and death.

Pretty much what we've been saying, I think. I'd still hate to be a bookie who took a bet on whether Harry lives or dies, though.

- - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Aug 12, 2007 5:52 pm (#41 of 44)

"We could have all been killed-- or worse, expelled!"
Nah. They'll be like the goblins in GoF and say it was a draw because he both lived AND died!

- - - - - - - - - -
Solitaire - Aug 12, 2007 7:34 pm (#42 of 44)

Interesting, isn't it, how every time Voldemort has attempted to hurt Harry, he just does more damage to himself? In the end, after all of his attempts and precautions to cheat death, he really wound up taking his own life! He is certainly the picture of hubris.

Solitaire

- - - - - - - - - -
geauxtigers - Aug 12, 2007 8:21 pm (#43 of 44)

Yum!
Don't ya just love the irony of it? Killed by his own rebounding curse...killed himself and all he wanted to do was avoid it!

- - - - - - - - - -
freshwater - Aug 15, 2007 4:06 pm (#44 of 44)

Connections, speculation, discussion: the best part of HP reading! Check out the on-going HP Lex Forum series re-read! Currently reading GoF...
I particularly like the fact that the one character doing everything in his power to avoid death....ended up killing himself --not just once-- but twice! (if you count Godric's Hollow)
avatar
Elanor
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 1440
Join date : 2011-02-19
Age : 44
Location : France

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum