<p>correct me if I'm wrong...but harry had to die was because he was the last horcrux, right? But if harry ended up living, wouldn't that mean that Voldy is able to come back?</p>
<p>No, the part of Voldemort's soul inside Harry was the last horcrux... so that part got killed but Harry lived. I think.</p>
<p>I still don't really understand why he didn't die... can anyone explain it to me?</p>
<p>He didnt die because the Elder Wand which Voldemort used to cast AV on Harry the first time wont kill its intended owner which was Harry. So when Voldemort cast AV he killed his soul or horcrux that was living inside Harry. When Harry was at King's Cross talking with Dumbledore in his semi-death state I think the baby on the ground crying symbolized the soul of Voldemort dying.</p>
<p>i can't grasp the fact that die hard fans don't remember the whole book seriously. I read the book in 5 hrs and remember everything perfectly.
Btw. I'll see who's a real fan here: q: who was the grounds keeper before Hagrid? If you can answer that without looking that up then you are on my level.</p>
<p>Wasn't is some guy named Ogg? It was in book four, I reread that one right before Deathly Hallows (For some reason I went backwards, 6, 5, 4).</p>
<p>By the way, the elder wand storyline was amazing, but it was so condensed that it seemed really convenient. Anyway, the more the book sinks in the more I love it. I can tell rereading this one will be just like reading it for the first time, it's so good.</p>
<p>Oh and the cover is wrong, because didn't the Elder Wand fly into the air after they threw their spells at each other? So there should be a big fiery ball between them.</p>
<p>And I agreed that the ending was a little anticlimactic too, but then I realized the battle of Hogwarts was really well done, and that JK Rowling probably meant for the final confrontation to be like that. Harry would never kill, so he used expelliarmus. Technically Voldemort killed himself. And the fact that he died so suddenly was just a showcase of his mortality. She calls him Tom Riddle when he's dying. I'm pretty sure JK Rowling had that all planned out perfectly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There'd be a riot if Harry died for good.
[/quote]
Actually, for a while, Rowling explicitly stated that the possibility of Harry dying in Book 7 was pretty large, as that would've been the foolproof method against else anyone trying to continue Harry's story post-Hogwarts.</p>
<p>Looks like Rowling's going to have to write "Harry Potter and the Mid-life Crisis" now. :)</p>
<p>I actually wanted Harry to die, I thought it would be corny if he survived. But I like this ending now.</p>
<p>And I agree, JK Rowling said a lot of stuff that made it sound like he would die. Maybe she left the epilogue so open-ended to make sure nobody else would take over her book. It sounds contradictory, but wouldn't it be easier to write a more authentic story of Harry Potter if Rowling had identified him, Ron, and Hermione as aurors or unspeakables or whatever careers they chose in the end? Besides, Voldemort was gone no matter what, and he's what made Harry Potter so good. Without him there's no running storyline.</p>
<p>"Someone manages to perform magic late in life (it wasn't Ron, because he wasn't speaking Parseltongue, he was imitating Harry), the Potter parents' jobs are important"</p>
<p>I agree! There were many things that we were "supposed" to learn that we didn't. We also didn't learn why some people become ghosts when they die, unless I'm incredibly stupid and somehow missesd that... I also remember something about the source of the Potters' riches being important (unless that just had to do with James being descended from the "three brothers" and having the invisibility cloak).</p>
<p>Perhaps those are all things that were included in JK's early drafts, but had to be scrapped for some reason or another.</p>
<p>LesOs, you're right, I forgot about the ghost thing. I was waiting for that with the Gray Lady, but it never came.</p>
<p>Maybe JK Rowling thinks the limbo that Harry was in, where he chooses to go back to life instead of moving on to Hogwarts Heaven, "informed" us about what happens when people die. But it really doesn't explain ghosts...</p>
<p>
[quote]
We also didn't learn why some people become ghosts when they die, unless I'm incredibly stupid and somehow missesd that...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They fear death. They chose to stay in a form that is neither fully living nor full dead [a ghost], rather than face death.</p>
<p>yeah.
JK has some splainin to do!</p>
<p>ChaosTheory, I think that's something that's implied rather than JK Rowling's explanation of it. I mean obviously it's true. But JK Rowling also said that "the happiest witches and wizards don't become ghosts," and just because you're happy doesn't mean you don't fear death. I think there was something more to it.</p>
<p>I'm starting to think two things are possible: one is that the explanation was cut from the King's Cross scene because it just didn't fit in, not with all the important questions Harry was asking. The other was that JK Rowling was referencing the Tale of the Three Brothers (the youngest one accepted Death, but this still doesn't really explain much). </p>
<p>I'm also starting to think that the person doing magic late in life was Filch during the Battle of Hogwarts (that's definitely desperate measures), but either it was cut or nobody noticed it. She probably made a joke out of it, Filch being so mad about all those people causing trouble in his halls that he started shooting spells, and then cut it when she needed to shorten it.</p>
<p>She obviously lied or cut some things. And if she cut all those things that came up during interviews, how much did she cut that didn't? She shouldn't have cut anything from the last book!</p>
<p>I think she just changed her mind, honestly. That's not the same as lying.</p>
<p>Oh well that's what I mean dis-grace. I'm just saying, she either changed her mind and didn't include it in the book like she originally meant to or else she lied to us all. Those are the only two possible explanations, and since we can assume she's not jerking us around she had to have cut it.</p>
<p>JK just came out with who got the reprieve: Arthur Weasley</p>
<p>Too bad she couldn't spare Fred, too.</p>
<p>I think the character doing magic was Molly. Before we've only read about her casting simple house spells, but no one realized she was such a great witch to have taken out Bellatrix.</p>
<p>And I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but can't believe she killed off Lupin and Tonks. I mean, they atleast deserved a battle rather than a "Oh they also died btw."</p>
<p>If you guys didn't hear, there was an interview on the Today show when she told what Harry, Ron, and Hermione did later...
Harry/Ron "revolutionized the Auror Department at the Ministry"
and Hermoine did something with Magical Law Enforcement</p>
<p>^ <a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/%5B/url%5D">http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/</a></p>
<p>I have a question:</p>
<p>When Harry was telling Voldemort that he didn't possess the Elder Wand but Draco did was he telling the truth? Explain because I think I missed something...</p>