Some things I didn't like in Harry Potter 7 *SPOILER ALERT*

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Don't get me wrong...I really enjoyed the seventh book. But there were some things that were bugging me, which I was hoping maybe some of you could clear up for me...</p>

<p>(1) Why did Snape play such a small role in the final book? After reading HBP, I was under the impression that Snape was perhaps the 3rd most powerful wizard in the world (behind Dumbledore and Voldemort). I believe this is justified, as Snape appears throughout the series to be the right-hand man of both Dumbledore and Voldemort. Regardless, his accomplishments in HBP suggest that he is extremely powerful. However, Snape is seldom seen (offering few clues to readers looking to decipher his allegiance - why is everything shown after the fact as one memory?). Even when he is present, Snape behaves weakly - especially in his death "fight" with Voldemort and Nagini. The only vindicating explanation I can see for Snape's behavior would be if Snape knew that Harry was hidden under his cloak, as it would be reasonable that Snape would take a slow death from the snake rather than an instant killing curse in order to pass his memories along to Harry. Nevertheless, I don't find it likely that Snape knew Harry was there before he was dying. I digress, but most of all I'm very suprised by the limited role that Snape played for either side.</p>

<p>(2) In my opinion, Dumbledore was right about too many things. Every character has their weaknesses, but Dumbledore appears utterly infallible - at least in the past century. He appropriately trusted Snape; handpicked all of Voldemort's horcruxes; concluded that Voldemort would someday seek the Deathstick after Dumbledore's death; identified the value in Harry's blood being placed within Voldemort. Regarding the horcruxes, I was especially disappointed that - because Dumbledore is always right - the only truly new Horcrux introduced was the one within Harry, which appears to be far less surprising than Rowling intended.</p>

<p>(3) Why was the trio convinced that the only remaining horcrux was the snake when they had only destroyed five horcruxes? I had been anticipating the "Harry is a horcrux" line throughout the book, and the trio's miscounting of the horcruxes made this part of the book appear far too obvious than it should have been. For me, this killed the surprise, but perhaps I made some error and had just happened to pick out the right conclusion.</p>

<p>(4) The ending (not just the epilogue!) was far too happy. Few of the deaths appeared meaningful, as they were introduced last minute and then neglected throughout the rest of the book. Perhaps more significantly, none of the major characters were harmed much at all in the final pages. I'm not saying that necessarily they needed to die, but the entire situation in the Great Hall was so surreal - not only does Harry kill off Voldemort with an "Expelliarmus," but all of the other characters do battle unscathed in this final scene. Hermione, Ron, Ginny, other Weasleys, Kingsley, Flitwick - none of them even need to have wounds cleaned up, for they have utterly dominated all the death eaters that they were dueling! As for the epilogue, I felt that giving Harry and the others a "normal" life is a tragedy. Despite all the experience and knowledge they have gleaned, the trio seem to have no interest in playing a central role when the next dark wizard comes. The idea that Harry and the others have accumulated a lifetime's worth of accomplishments in their first seventeen years diminishes the heroism prevalent throughout the entire series.</p>

<p>Just some thoughts...again, great book as a whole! =)</p>

2

<p>stambliark41, you summed up most of my thoughts. I especially echo the 4th point...it was far too tame, what with all the hype that was built up. I loved it and hated it though. The final fights were brilliant, IMO, if a bit incredulous (all the main characters escape unscathed). The middle did drag a bit, what with all the goblins and all. </p>

<p>The 'Harry is a horcrux' part was blatantly obvious to anyone who interpreted HP6 in the right manner. It was just a matter of time to see that statement.</p>

<p>But well, I'm still really sad that the Harry era has finally come to an end...the first book was written when I was in kindergarten :)...looks like it's finally come the full circle!</p>

3

<p>Great book...
Ok he didn't kill Voldy with Expelliarmus voldy's killing curse bakc fired at him.</p>

<p>And when harry "died" Dumbledore revealed his flaws his fear of what power would do to him and his want for power. Harry knew what the mirror of Erised really showed Dumbledore.....the deathly Hallows. He really isn't the flawless just secretive as is Snape, and the HP 7 revealed every last one of them. HP5 hinted at Snape's love for Lily but no at sucha young age and HP 7 showed that Sanpe kind of loved Harry after all he is Lily's son.</p>

<p>Fred died...that was one Weasley and Tonks and Lupin were important deaths not detailed, but important. They left a child behind and Harry was his godfather(it mirrors Harry's situation in a way)</p>

<p>In the Epilogue one of the kids asked why is everyone staring at them...I don't think that even hints of a normal life everone in the wizarding world is staring at you.</p>

<p>The trio had no idea Harry was a horcrux because they thought all along that to make a horcrux you have to intentionally kill and split your soul, the killing curse backfired at Ridddle and he was just asoul, but the fact he tried to kill a mere child must have been just as evil to create the horcrux.</p>

<p>I hope she writes more books because she is an excellent writer</p>

4

<p>Oh yeah I forgot something.</p>

<p>The book highlights how no one is <em>perfect</em>. Not even Dumbledore, what with all his family issues. Not Harry, with his hot-headedness. Not Voldy. Nobody.</p>

<p>I think that's a lesson for life as well. <em>Sigh</em>, I sound so cliched right now, don't I? It's just that I love interpreting literature.</p>

5

<p>I found Snape's last words to Harry very bittersweet - "Look at me."</p>

<p>I wish Rowling had given more details in her epilogue - such as how George does without Fred in continuing Weasley's Wizard Wheezes company. I vaguely entertained the thought that maybe Percy joined him after Fred's last words to him. Guess not since he briefly appears being his old officious self at the Hogwarts train.</p>

6

<p>I like how Harry didn't KILL Voldemort. It was definitely because of him that Voldy died, but he didn't kill. An important theme running through the book was the terrible evil of killing. Harry succeeded not because of his skill but because of his "love." I also liked how the "Expelliarmus" thing came full circle... Lupin told Harry just to kill, that it was time to use more "final" spells, but he defeated Voldemort with his "trademark" Expelliarmus.</p>

<p>I also liked that the ultimate battle was at Hogwarts. It just seemed fitting.</p>

<p>As for the negatives, I agree with everything that Stambliark said. I was hoping that the epilogue would deal more with how the wizarding world healed. I also wanted to see some evidence of sadness.... For example, seeing George at the end, and observing how his twin's death changed him. (EDIT: yeah, what Zimmer said!)</p>

7

<p>I agree completely with LesOs, including agreeing with stambliark :).</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
The book highlights how no one is <em>perfect</em>. Not even Dumbledore, what with all his family issues. Not Harry, with his hot-headedness. Not Voldy. Nobody.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>YES. I can't emphasize how on target you are with this message. I believe that Rowling meant for us to know that even the best of us have our own shortcomings, but it's ultimately nothing to be ashamed of. It's the final mindset and the whole picture that matters. We are not defined by our errors in the past.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I like how Harry didn't KILL Voldemort. It was definitely because of him that Voldy died, but he didn't kill. An important theme running through the book was the terrible evil of killing. Harry succeeded not because of his skill but because of his "love."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is also very true. What sets Harry apart from the Death Eaters and the others who have wielded the Elder Wand is the fact that he is not willing to kill. Even when exhorted by Lupin to use Avada Kedavra, Harry maintained his ground and never shed blood. This is a direct contrast to Voldemort, who would use whatever necessary force to reach his needs. It is Harry's regard for the value of life (and the courage of facing death) that set him apart from Voldemort. Love was always a central theme in the HP series (love for one's child, love for one's friends, self-sacrifice, love for one another...etc.) and I believe Rowling brought it full circle at the end when Harry's ability to love sets him apart from the remorse-less Voldemort.</p>

<p>Regarding the ending, I just have to say that I throught Rowling would choose to end the series this way. There are tens of millions of readers demanding a satisfactory ending, and I think ending it on a macabre note of many deaths or doing a "Hamlet" ending with Harry, Ron, and Hermione might be too much for the readers. Through the death of Fred, Remus, and Tonks in the end it made coping easier with the readers, and like pointed out above, also put Harry in the same position as he was in regards to Teddy. I thought this was quite nicely done. </p>

<p>I was always convinced that either Ron or Hermione would die, though. I was quite surprised that they got together (how can they stand each other?! lol =D). I knew roughly that Harry wasn't going to be "dead dead" - I think that's even more cliched and I guess some readers might be maddened so the way Rowling brought it about was okay. I don't really like the epilogue that much but I rather think Rowling wants to settle some pressing spectulations and predictions by foretelling what eventually "did" happen. She DOES read fanfiction, you know - and I think she would want to settle some debates about the romantic pairings :]</p>

<p>I thought it was quite interesting that Harry was born in 1980, the story concludes at 1997, but the epilogue is 19 years later, which means it's 2016! Rowling can foretell the future! *gasp =D</p>

9

<p>I will add things I didn't like</p>

<p>The elder wand's abilities seemed inconsistent. If its owner can't be defeated in battle, how did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald? The only explanation seems to be that Grindlewald wasn't the true owner, which means it would have stayed with Gregorovitch who he stole it from, who was killed by Voldemort, which would mean Voldemort was the true owner and should have killed Harry with his spell?</p>

<p>I also didn't like how the locket horcruxe was hidden in a place close to Voldemort, closed inside a sealed cave, in the middle of a lake of inferi, in a bowl of cursed water than tries to incapacitate then kill you, then enchanted so it tries to convince you to turn on your friends...but then the cup horcrux is just tossed in gringotts in the vault of a known death eater with no other protection(why wouldn't this have been searched when she was imprisoned?) and the diadem is left in plain view in the room of requirement with no further protection. Why all the trouble for the locket and not the other ones?</p>

<p>Didn't like how Rowling gave the ministry the power to detect it any time someone said the name "Voldemort", it seemed implausible, if that is possible in a magical world. </p>

<p>I am also confused, i thought griphook ran off with gryffindor's sword in gringotts, but then Neville some how got it to kill Nagini?</p>

10

<p>I cried my eyes out when Fred died. </p>

<p>Other than that.... AWSUM</p>

11

<p>It was great.</p>

<p>Stambliark:
You have to consider this:
Harry, Ron and Hermione thought the 7th horcrux WAS Tom Riddle. But it really was Harry, that is why it wasn't as obvious as one might think.</p>

12

<p>As someone has said, throughout the HP series, Rowling emphasizes that no one is perfect in the sense that human beings necessarily have flaws in their personality, intelligence, physical appearance, etc. </p>

<p>I think, however, if we set aside personality or intelligence or the other such traits that compose the mortal part of the human being, the part that can be killed with an Avada Kedavra curse or in an accident, and instead look at the fundamental morality of a person -- a person's essential goodness or evil, which I belive are elements of the more ethereal soul -- then it can be said that Rowling has created a perfect being, and, likewise, its antithesis -- one that is the embodiment of evil.</p>

<p>Who is this perfect being? Harry Potter, of course: The Boy Who Lived, who by the by the end of HPDH becomes The Man who Lives Again (as I have christened him). Indeed, Harry survives not just one Avada Kedavra curse, but a second one cast by the being who tried to do him in the first time. As far as we know, no one other than Harry has survived two AK curses. That, in itself, distinguishes Harry from most other humans. But does this make him "perfect" per se? Certainly not, since, as the Horcruxes demonstrate, immortality and impenetrability do not equate with moral goodness. But does Harry's unique protection hint that he is special in a way that could be moral perfection? I think so.</p>

<p>Harry is, after all, the boy who at the age of eleven peers into the Mirror of Erised and sees not a reflection of greed and power, or riches and fame, but an image of his parents, symbolic of his ability to love. And love, according to Rowling's persistent references throughout the series, is the sole entity that is pure between human beings. </p>

<p>Harry's love, meanwhile, manifests itself in his unbridled selflessness. His love of his family, his love for Ron and Hermione, his love for the Wizarding community of which he only recently gained an idea, allows him to peer again in the Mirror and steal the Sorceror's stone, which would allow Voldemort to return to power and destroy that which he loves. This manifestation of his love -- unbridled selflessness -- appears again and again. In the Chamber of Secrets, Harry rescues Ginny from the clutches of one piece of Voldemort's soul (not to mention the jetplane-size basilisk protecting it). In the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry allows Peter Pettigrew to live when Lupin and Sirius could so easily have killed him, the man who betrayed Harry's family. In The Goblet of Fire, Harry attempts to save Cedric's lifeless body even as Voldemort pursues him, wand in hand. In HBP, Harry ends his relationship with Ginny in an attempt to protect her, sacrificing (for the time being ;) ) his closeness with her. Finally, in the final installment, Harry's demonstrations of selflessness are too innumerable to name. One that would have stood out for its utter improbability, had not Harry been involved, is his saving Malfoy and Goyle from the Room of Requirement. So, in the end, Harry saves not only those he loves directly, but those whom he shows no outward love for, but instead could be grouped under "living things," for whom Harry necessarily has an appreciation, if not love.</p>

<p>By comparison with other characters, we can see that Harry is at once the most morally perfect of those who appear in Harry Potter. Dumbledore, for example, who before HP7 seems to come close to Harry in terms of his goodness and kindness of heart, is revealed to have a streak of greed and a lust for power that, however repressed, show themselves in the Mirror of Erised. Hermione, meanwhile, while inherently good, thirsts for knowledge and wisdom. While wisdom is not "bad" per se, a parallel could be drawn to Dumbledore, whose brilliance and search for wisdom leads him to make some poor decisions about the Deathly Hallows. Ron, meanwhile, as demonstrated by the Mirror of Erised and his longing for the Elder Wand, desires a chance for fame and power. Again, these characters are all inherently good, but possess one minor flaw that differentiate them from Harry, the one being that (despite his "hotheadedness") is good.</p>

<p>At the other side of the moral spectrum, the side of evil, is Lord Voldemort, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, and He-Who-Has-Gone-Farther-Than-Anyone-On-The-Road-To-Immortality. Voldemort is exactly Harry's opposite on this spectrum because he cannot love. He has no idea of penitence, of caring, a characteristic which is encapsulated when Harry gives him one last chance to repent, but he gives Harry a blank look. He trusts no one, not even his closest Bellatrix, and disregards the maiming of life itself, which is precious only when it is his. He is the exaggeration of all those flaws that mark the good-but-not-great. Indeed, he shares Hermione's thirst for knowledge, except that in LV's case, it is used purely to advance him self. He shares Ron's love of power and fame, as well as a fetish for treasures. He shares Dumbledore's want to master death, but takes it to a point that Dumbledore would not venture. Indeed, Voldemort is the embodiment of all that is evil; he is that which was released from Pandora's Box, enshrouded in a cloak of pure blackness.</p>

<p>Even those who seem inherently evil are simply...not "Voldemort-evil." Voldemort's historical counterpart, Grindelwald, is revealed to have at least softened in his years in Azkaban and refused to disclose the location of the Elder Wand to Voldemort. Most of Voldmort's supporters, meanwhile, have at least an inkling of goodness. The Malfoys simply want to save Draco by the end of HPDH. Bellatrix, no matter how cruel and insane, still possesses a reverence that borders upon love for her master Voldemort. Voldemort, Harry's exact antithesis, surpasses all others in evil because everyone excepting himself has at least an iota of what it means to be human -- love.</p>

<p>In the final battle, it is no longer Harry and Voldemort fighting. It is the battle between an ideal good and a perfect evil, a struggle between pure light and impenetrable darkness. The conflict is not a singular conflict, but one that is symbolic of that which persists over many generations, over eons, because no one is simply as good as Harry, or as evil as Voldemort. The uplifting message Rowling leaves us with is that at the very end of it all -- whenever that may be -- goodness is not flawed by killing evil; instead, evil swallows itself up. </p>

<p>And so we strive for the unique goodness that is Harry, and deal with the persistent evil that is Voldemort, and perhaps one day one can finally say that "All was well."</p>

13

<p>I'm a little more than halfway through the book, and I don't like it! Call me crazy, but I think that the other HP books were more interesting. It's just so different.....</p>

14

<p>Hufflepuff's cup wasn't just "tossed" in the Lestrange's vault. Voldemort thought that Gringrotts was safe - and why should he think otherwise? It's near impossible to get into the vault without a very learned goblin who knows the way through, and even then, there were security checks to see whether the person who accessed the Lestrange's vault was actually Bellatrix (the goblins didn't go through it because the reception goblin was Impervised by Harry). The Thief's Downfall, the dragon, and the Gemini spells in Lestrange's vault all protected the cup - I would say this kind of security rivals, if not surpasses, that of the locket in the cave! We're talking whoever gets into Lestrange's vault would have to confound an whole army of goblins, get around the ancient magic protecting Gringrotts, and make his way through Lestrange's vault with the cup and not die through the Gemini curse. Even so, the intruder may have to fight his way through Gringrotts at the end when the goblins realized what was happening. I think this is "security." Moreover, Voldemort has every reason to trust Bellatrix - after all, she appears to be the only Death Eater he really trusted (before the fiasco at Malfoy Manor).</p>

<p>I believe Ravenclaw's diadem's hidden location was not because Voldemort was not careful, but rather, it was due to his arrogance. Voldemort thought that he would be the only person to penetrate the Room of Requirement and thought that if he kept the diadem there, no one would be able to retrieve it. Moreover, it appears that hardly anyone knew about the diadem, much less that it was a horcrux, so Voldemort thought that the plan was fail-safe. It also makes sense that it was the most logical location to hide the horcrux if he was to hide it in Hogwarts - after all, only an individual that knows all about the horcrux and wants to retrieve it would gain access to the room. Even if some student blunders along, looking for somewhere to hide some illegal goods and gains access to the room, the student will not recognize the significance of the diadem and thus neglect to notice it. Remember, the diadem was not something glittery or shiny that causes notice. It all makes sense - where else can Voldemort hide a horcrux in Hogwarts without it being discovered by Dumbledore or someone else?</p>

<p>I don't think Gregorvitch ever retained control of the Elder Wand. I don't have the book here, but didn't Gregorvitch acquire the wand through chance means and was studying how to produce a replica? I don't think Rowling would have left such a big plot hole.</p>

<p>And I think there are some magical properties that aren't explained by the Sorting Hat. Harry also pulled the sword of Gryffindor out of the hat in the Chamber of Secrets, and it was in Dumbledore's possession then - perhaps there is a magic link between the hat and the sword? </p>

<p>ps. Judging from the epilogue, the Sorting Hat was probably not destroyed, even it though it caught on fire (unless Hogwarts found a new way of Sorting). So...maybe there is more than what meets the eye to the Hat.</p>

15

<p>Wow, I just realized I made the longest, most unnecessary post ever. Sorry.</p>

<p>Back to the subject of this thread... </p>

<p>Hem hem.</p>

<p>Haha, I felt a little let down by the ending+epilogue. It was a little too "happy" for me and felt slightly awkward when juxtaposed with the rest of the book, which was dark and forboding. I also didn't like the fact that in the dangerous clime of Voldemort's world, it was Aurors Mad-Eye and Tonks, and highly skilled Lupin, who died (forget Fred for the moment), when barely overage wizards fought Death Eaters left and right and managed to survive. And Mrs. Weasley pwning Bellatrix? Hmmm... I could see her having gained some exceptional dueling experience while wrestling with overcooked chicken and her Muggle-loving husband, but I don't see her winning over a witch that took down four trained Death Eaters in one stroke. Nor do I see Luna, Ginny, and Ron (I think? it was Ron) not getting shredded beforehand.</p>

<p>Also, Snape's love of Lily was revealed a little too abruptly, I thought. I don't know if it was the fact that I read a lot of fan theories beforehand, among which this was one, but I thought the memory simply wasn't enough to set up for the Snape/Lily thingy, and it felt improbable as a result.</p>

<p>Edit: Oasis, I agree with most of your points. However, I think it's odd that Voldemort would trust anyone other himself with pieces of his soul. This includes the diary that he gave to Lucius. I would have expected Voldemort, arrogant as he is, to at least have learned after the diary was destroyed to use his own enchantments to hide Helga's cup instead of entrusting it to Bellatrix, goblins, and a strong, but not invincible dragon.</p>

16

<p><a href="4">quote=stambliark</a> The ending (not just the epilogue!) was far too happy. Few of the deaths appeared meaningful, as they were introduced last minute and then neglected throughout the rest of the book. Perhaps more significantly, none of the major characters were harmed much at all in the final pages. I'm not saying that necessarily they needed to die, but the entire situation in the Great Hall was so surreal - not only does Harry kill off Voldemort with an "Expelliarmus," but all of the other characters do battle unscathed in this final scene. Hermione, Ron, Ginny, other Weasleys, Kingsley, Flitwick - none of them even need to have wounds cleaned up, for they have utterly dominated all the death eaters that they were dueling! As for the epilogue, I felt that giving Harry and the others a "normal" life is a tragedy. Despite all the experience and knowledge they have gleaned, the trio seem to have no interest in playing a central role when the next dark wizard comes. The idea that Harry and the others have accumulated a lifetime's worth of accomplishments in their first seventeen years diminishes the heroism prevalent throughout the entire series.

[/quote]
Harry explained all this while he was talking to Voldemort. Because he had sacrificed himself in order to save all those he loved, they had all been protected with the same magic that Harry's mother had used. Therefore, Voldemort and his death eaters couldn't harm him.


I think that Dumbledore did defeat him battle, despite the Elder Wand, because he was a better wizard and used anything more power than magic, love. He used the love of his sister and his anger at himself to help him fight Grindelwald and he won. Maybe this is the duel that taught Dumbledore his most important message to Harry: "you can only win with love." But, who knows...


The Sorting Hat allows people to pull whatever they need most out of it. In Chamber of Secrets, Harry pulled out the sword, even though it should have been in Dumbledore's office. As Dumbledore explained, the Sword of Godric Gryffindor comes to those who show bravery, chivalry, etc. which is whyhe had to swim in the lake to get it. By Neville standing up to the Dark Lord, he showed his bravery thus enabling him to get out of the sorting hat the thing he most needed: that sword.</p>

<p>Some things that annoyed me:
Did Harry ever tell his kids about how he defeated Voldemort? Because in the epilogue at King's Cross when everyone was staring at Harry, Albus was confused...</p>

<p>Secondly, I hate how Harry has always been right throughout this whole series and Ron and Hermoine never believe him. In the 6th book, Harry knew Malfoy and Snape were up to no good and Hermoine and Ron thought he was overreacting. Maybe if that had acted earlier (helped Harry discover what Malfoy was doing in the Room of Requirement) Dumbledore would still be alive. And then in the 7th book, Harry tells Hermoine and Ron that one of the horcruxes it at Hogwarts, they don't believe him. He tells them that the Hallows do exist and that they are the key, they don't believe him once again. If I was Harry, I would be yelling "I TOLD YOU SO" at the top of my lungs...</p>

17

<p>Also,</p>

<p>I am soo annoyed that Slytherin House still exists!!! Almost all of them were evil! As I read the end of the book and everyone sat together, not as houses, I thought it meant a new time for Hogwarts, when everyone just lived together and were no longer divided along house alliegances...but, I guess I was wrong</p>

18

<p>harry isn't a horcrux, that's the whole point. so the trio was right in thinking that the snake was the last one before voldemort himself had to die. the seven horcruxes (the last one being the last piece of soul left in voldemort) are:</p>

<p>the locket - destroyed by ron
the diadem - destroyed in the fire
the cup - destroyed by hermione
the ring - destroyed by dumbledore
the diary - destroyed in book 2
the snake
voldemort</p>

<p>so harry wasn't really a horcrux, a part of voldemort's soul just lodged itself inside him. i know its not a clear distinction but it is a distinction that rowling makes.</p>

19

<p>oh, and this is my thread post in a row, but some more thoughts:</p>

<p>I loved the way Snape died. Or, at least, I loved the way he let Harry finally see him. "Look at me." So simple, yet it conveyed so much. He wanted Harry to see him for who he was, a man that had also used love to help him conquer evil, an evil living inside of himself. I also think that he wanted to see Lily's green eyes, the only part of Harry that resembles his mother, for comfort and reassurance one last time before he died.</p>

<p>I cried when Harry called back his family to walk with thim to his death. When his mom said "You're a brave, brave boy" my tears splotched all over the page. It was sooooo sad, yet so happy at the same time. Harry finally got to talk to his parents, hear their voices, feel their love, but only as he walked to his death. And even then, Harry knew he had to let them go once again, instead of holding on to the stone while he faced Voldemort, he recognized that he could count on no one but himself, he dropped the stone and faced him completely alone.</p>

<p>One last thing, since Harry has the cloak, he was a descendent of Ignotus Peverell, right? And Voldemort was also a descendent of Peverell (through Marvolo Gaunt), so that makes Harry and Voldemort related, right? I thought this was quite fitting. Harry and Voldemort lived parallel lives. Both oprhaned as babies, both relegated to living in horrible conditions of the muggle world (Voldemort at the orphanage, Harry at the Dursley's), both calling Hogwarts their home, both on a constant quest to find themselves. And finally, both of them united by their brother wands. And even when their original wands were gone (Voldemort had the Elder Wand, and Harry had Draco's wand), they still faced each other as brothers, rounding each other off in a sibling rivalry in their dining room...I thinks it pretty cool how Harry and Voldemort are mirrors of the same person simply pulled down different paths...</p>

20

<p>Snape was a man living in two worlds - a world in which he loved Lily Evans (very Gatsby-esque) and a world where he interacts with Harry, Lily's son, who also contains his memories of James. Snape simply can neither loathe or love Harry completely - Snape cares about and protects Harry because of Lily's memory, yet Snape loathes the recollection of his father. This is why Snape could not ever bring himself to show extreme kindness to Harry, but still assists him in several instances (preventing Quirrell from cursing Harry, giving him Occulmency lessons, when instructed to by Dumbledore). Yes, I do agree that Snape was a character who turned from evil through the power of love - when Voldemort never overcame that threshold. When Snape gazed at Harry when he was dying in the Shrieking Shack, he had finally let go of the loathing and contempt he had for his father - through entrusting the memory of his humiliation to Harry. He overcame hate with love - while Voldemort was never capable of that. Even at the end, Snape wanted to let Harry know how much he cared for him - something he could never had said directly to Harry, because of his pride. </p>

<p>Snape's love for Lily rechanneled itself into Harry. Was Snape 100% innocent? Hardly. But just like Dumbledore, who had his own errors, who was to say that Snape's former errors dictated his heart at the end? Did Dumbledore's errors dictate his?</p>

<p>Although Snape didn't appear until the very end of HPDH, I believe his dying scene in the Shrieking Shack and the chapter on "The Prince's Tale" conveys the equivalent of, if not surpassing, all the parts that Snape had in the previous six volumes.</p>