Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Book 7 (2 Viewers)

[KarmaPolice]

Good point on the Horcruxes.

You've got a lot of apparent inside information (how do you come by it?), so I'll take your word for it on Neville. Foreshadowing is a major part of the previous books, so I thought it somewhat logical.

I didn't want to convolute my previous post, but as others have thought, I also think that Neville may actually be the boy from the prophecy, rather than Harry.

I'm tempted to ask for some spoilers via PM, but I'd much prefer them to be a surprise while reading the book.

I shouldn't have written my comments above like I knew what was going to happen, I don't of course.The way JK can create brand new characters, spells, back stories, etc... with the stroke of a pen makes it all but impossible to guess too much accurately. E.g., I seriously doubt that anyone anywhere guessed the story behind the name of the "Half Blooded Prince" book, and millions tried.

I have developed a theory about how I think the series is going to end, and to me it makes enough sense that I think it's fairly likely to happen that way. Who knows about all the details JK could come up with, but I have a theory about the overall ending, which in large part is a happy one, although of course there will be a lot of sorrow and pain in the final book as well.

There's A LOT of stuff and theories online. There are also books like THIS one that are very in depth as to some of the possible clues/plot twists.

Exactly, the book linked above is an EXCELLENT resource, filled with provocative theories and open ended questions that really make you think. HOWEVER, unless you are the type that likes spoilers, I wouldn't recommend reading it - especially now that the final book in the series is almost here. But absolutely read it once you've finished the series, I 100% guarantee that if you are an HP fan, reading this book will cause you to go back and reread the entire series with a much deeper level of appreciation.

As for online, this site is the gold standard for HP sites, it has more information than you could ever hope to read or digest. But it is top quality stuff, and it's where the most knowledgable HP fans in the world go to discuss the books, theories, questions, etc...

Thought I read in an interview that JK's favorite site is http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org

 

[Das Boot]

Good point on the Horcruxes.

You've got a lot of apparent inside information (how do you come by it?), so I'll take your word for it on Neville. Foreshadowing is a major part of the previous books, so I thought it somewhat logical.

I didn't want to convolute my previous post, but as others have thought, I also think that Neville may actually be the boy from the prophecy, rather than Harry.

I'm tempted to ask for some spoilers via PM, but I'd much prefer them to be a surprise while reading the book.

I shouldn't have written my comments above like I knew what was going to happen, I don't of course.The way JK can create brand new characters, spells, back stories, etc... with the stroke of a pen makes it all but impossible to guess too much accurately. E.g., I seriously doubt that anyone anywhere guessed the story behind the name of the "Half Blooded Prince" book, and millions tried.

I have developed a theory about how I think the series is going to end, and to me it makes enough sense that I think it's fairly likely to happen that way. Who knows about all the details JK could come up with, but I have a theory about the overall ending, which in large part is a happy one, although of course there will be a lot of sorrow and pain in the final book as well.

There's A LOT of stuff and theories online. There are also books like THIS one that are very in depth as to some of the possible clues/plot twists.

Exactly, the book linked above is an EXCELLENT resource, filled with provocative theories and open ended questions that really make you think. HOWEVER, unless you are the type that likes spoilers, I wouldn't recommend reading it - especially now that the final book in the series is almost here. But absolutely read it once you've finished the series, I 100% guarantee that if you are an HP fan, reading this book will cause you to go back and reread the entire series with a much deeper level of appreciation.

As for online, this site is the gold standard for HP sites, it has more information than you could ever hope to read or digest. But it is top quality stuff, and it's where the most knowledgable HP fans in the world go to discuss the books, theories, questions, etc...

Thought I read in an interview that JK's favorite site is http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org

I'm sure that's a great one too, I barely have enough time to occasionally read stuff at Mugglenet.JK's website is also excellent: http://www.jkrowling.com/

 

[KarmaPolice]

Here is something that I was reading that was different about the POA movie vs. the book that might be a clue for Book 7:

 

[kupcho1]

This series is a literature masterpiece.

I'm more laughing at the mangled phrasing rather than the fact that someone thinks The Harry Potter series is a literary masterpiece.Although that's hilarious as well.

Don't get me wrong, I've read all of them. It's an enjoyable series.

And Rowling has evolved to become quite the competent writer over the course of the series (which was certainly not the case in the first book). But to say she's produced a masterpiece, well, that's just ridiculous.

Oh, of course something with such main stream appeal can't be a masterpiece That's the same reason the academy always picks some piece of garbage as one of the movies of the year because they want to make it seem like they are above the masses...

To take a series of books and write them progressively more complex as the age of main character advances is pretty flippin incredible. People mock the writing of the first book, but it was essentially a children's book. To go from there and progress from that to the 6th book is nothing short of remarkable.

This is an extremely well thought out world and plot that spans seven books incredibly well. Well, at least 6 so far.

Go ahead and mock. But that's like looking at chicks in the Babe Bracket and marking none of the above because they don't fit you grand standards. Back in reality with the rest of us and things look a little different. Go back to you supermodel wife, finish the sequel to the book that won you a Pulizter, while you bask in the glory of your Nobel Peace Prize for literature....the rest of us aren't in your class. We're just a bunch of geeks who are talking about Harry Potter on a Fantasy Football site in April....

People are correct in saying the first book wasn't as well written (relatively speaking) as the later books. That's because she's learning on the job, so to speak. If you're saying that Rowling intentionally wrote the first book with less skill than she's shown progressively through the next five I'm going to have to disagree with you.

And as far as mocking goes, I'm reading the series. Who am I mocking? (Well, other than you (a bit, and good naturedly, I assure you) for saying its a "literature masterpiece.")

Just because a lot of people are buying the book, doesn't make it one. For crying out loud, Thomas Kinkade sells an awful lot of canvas, but I don't think anyone's comparing him to Van Gogh.

I'm glad you're reading the Harry Potter series. Hopefully that will encourage you to explore other books and authors. There are a number of book threads active in the FFA. Perhaps when the Rowling saga is over you can continue with something else.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.

The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...

Tom Riddle's diary

Marvalo Gaunt's ring

Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)

Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)

unknown of Gryffindor

unknown of Ravenclaw

That is six and there is supposedly 7 that Harry and Albus have to destroy... but...

Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

 

[snorlax]

The seventh horcrux is the snake; it's practically been stated outright. I don't think Voldemort had to use a horcrux when Wormtail did his stuff; I think they're more of a stopper to complete death than a tool for renewing life.

 

[Bouncing Beatnik]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...Tom Riddle's diaryMarvalo Gaunt's ring Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)unknown of Gryffindorunknown of RavenclawThat is six and there is supposedly 7 that Harry and Albus have to destroy... but...Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

Isn't the 7th Voldemort himself? 1/7 of his soul resides in himself, and the other 6/7 reside in 6 other objects.

 

[snorlax]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...Tom Riddle's diaryMarvalo Gaunt's ring Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)unknown of Gryffindorunknown of RavenclawThat is six and there is supposedly 7 that Harry and Albus have to destroy... but...Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

Isn't the 7th Voldemort himself? 1/7 of his soul resides in himself, and the other 6/7 reside in 6 other objects.

No, there are 7 horcruxes.

 

[Bouncing Beatnik]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.

The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...

Tom Riddle's diary

Marvalo Gaunt's ring

Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)

Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)

unknown of Gryffindor

unknown of Ravenclaw

That is six and there is supposedly 7 that Harry and Albus have to destroy... but...

Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

Isn't the 7th Voldemort himself? 1/7 of his soul resides in himself, and the other 6/7 reside in 6 other objects.

No, there are 7 horcruxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horcrux#Horcr...y_Potter_novelsDon't remember where I read this, but the quote is "quoting wikipedia is like quoting 'some guy'". However, there it is.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.

The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...

Tom Riddle's diary

Marvalo Gaunt's ring

Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)

Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)

unknown of Gryffindor

unknown of Ravenclaw

That is six and there is supposedly 7 that Harry and Albus have to destroy... but...

Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

One theory that is talked about frequently is that Harry himself is a Horcrux. That also fits with one of my pet theories about the last book; that we'll find out Harry is currently the last living decendent of Godric Gryffindor. Harry's family on the Potter (Wizarding) side is a complete mystery to this point, however his parents were hiding from Voldemort in Godric Hollow when everything went down. Of course there was also Harry's ability to pull the sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat, the last two house relics. It would also complete the symmetry Harry has with Voldemort, and sets up the final confrontation as part of a much longer conflict between the two houses.

 

[(HULK)]

This series is a literature masterpiece.

I'm more laughing at the mangled phrasing rather than the fact that someone thinks The Harry Potter series is a literary masterpiece.Although that's hilarious as well.Don't get me wrong, I've read all of them. It's an enjoyable series.And Rowling has evolved to become quite the competent writer over the course of the series (which was certainly not the case in the first book). But to say she's produced a masterpiece, well, that's just ridiculous.

The Harry Potter series are good entertaining books.Calling it a "masterpiece" is akin to putting Jamal Lewis into the Hall of Fame.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.

The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...

Tom Riddle's diary

Marvalo Gaunt's ring

Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)

Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)

unknown of Gryffindor

unknown of Ravenclaw

That is six and there is supposedly 7 that Harry and Albus have to destroy... but...

Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

Well, it's been stated that he has to go back to Godric's Hollow (where his parent's lived). IMO, that means:Then again, wouldn't Dumbledore know all of that?

 

[TheFanatic]

Just because a lot of people are buying the book, doesn't make it one. For crying out loud, Thomas Kinkade sells an awful lot of canvas, but I don't think anyone's comparing him to Van Gogh.

That doesn't mean that Kinkade is a bad painter because he has mainstream appeal. And truth be told, Van Gogh was not that noted till well after he was dead except for a small group of artists and followers known along le petit boulevard.

I'm glad you're reading the Harry Potter series. Hopefully that will encourage you to explore other books and authors. There are a number of book threads active in the FFA. Perhaps when the Rowling saga is over you can continue with something else.

I'll get right on that. Let's see, I read about a dozen novels a year. A little more if I have to travel for work. Just reread the Family by Mario Puzo (my favorite author). I guess he wasn't any good either because his books made him a multi millionaire while he was still alive. In fact he specifically write the Godfather to try to get rich. What a hack, huh?I read a lot of mainstream stuff like all of Baldacci's, Metzler's, Morrell's, most of Ludlum's, as well as a great many classics - Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Great Gatsby, Crime and Punishment, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre (had to read both the Bronte Sisters), GRapes of Wrath, as well as some off the wall stuff like some of the writings from Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, and D'Tocqueville to name a few off the top of my head. So if you want to discuss the significance of the color yellow in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment or the significance of the color green in Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby we can do that. Or we can discuss how Plato purported that many ideas of his were actually Socrates' ideas in order to not suffer the same fate as Socrates. Or how amazing it was that Elexis D'Tocqueville predicted prior to the Civil war in Democracy in America that the United States and Russia would dominate the globe in the years to come. But please don't mock my literary palette because I hold the writings of JKR in great esteem. Anyone with such popularity is going to get dissenters. Congrats. You qualify.

 

[(HULK)]

...

Look, the term "masterpiece" should signify rare air. I don't think the Harry Potter series qualifies.Do you think the Chronicles of Naria series qualifies as a "masterpiece"? I love those books, have read them plenty of times, and I would never use that term to describe them.I'm a Harry Potter fan, but I think calling it a "masterpiece" is being a tad overzealous.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The seventh horcrux is the snake; it's practically been stated outright. I don't think Voldemort had to use a horcrux when Wormtail did his stuff; I think they're more of a stopper to complete death than a tool for renewing life.

All smoke screen in terms of Nagini. Rowling will never deny rumors but she does not reveal them either. The Nagini thing is speculation and I am not buying it until I read that Rowling says it is. Nagini being a Horcrux is codswallop.

 

[TheFanatic]

The seventh horcrux is the snake; it's practically been stated outright. I don't think Voldemort had to use a horcrux when Wormtail did his stuff; I think they're more of a stopper to complete death than a tool for renewing life.

All smoke screen in terms of Nagini. Rowling will never deny rumors but she does not reveal them either. The Nagini thing is speculation and I am not buying it until I read that Rowling says it is. Nagini being a Horcrux is codswallop.

I would agree. Why would he put a piece of his soul into something that can die when he can put it in an inanimate object that can never die?

 

[KarmaPolice]

The seventh horcrux is the snake; it's practically been stated outright. I don't think Voldemort had to use a horcrux when Wormtail did his stuff; I think they're more of a stopper to complete death than a tool for renewing life.

All smoke screen in terms of Nagini. Rowling will never deny rumors but she does not reveal them either. The Nagini thing is speculation and I am not buying it until I read that Rowling says it is. Nagini being a Horcrux is codswallop.

I would agree. Why would he put a piece of his soul into something that can die when he can put it in an inanimate object that can never die?

I would agree too. I never bought into Nagini being a horcrux. Seems too easy.

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is from Chap. 36 of GOF:

"He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said that the protection my --- my mother left me --- he'd have it too. And he was right -- he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face."

For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes.

Not sure what to make of that. I've read interviews where she's stated that this look from Dumbledore is very imoportant.

 

[Challenge Everything]

http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/acti...shriekingshack/

vote for living/dying

 

[TheFanatic]

http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/acti...shriekingshack/

vote for living/dying

Only 25% think that Voldemort will die?

 

[kupcho1]

I'm glad you're reading the Harry Potter series. Hopefully that will encourage you to explore other books and authors. There are a number of book threads active in the FFA. Perhaps when the Rowling saga is over you can continue with something else.

I'll get right on that. Let's see, I read about a dozen novels a year. A little more if I have to travel for work. Just reread the Family by Mario Puzo (my favorite author). I guess he wasn't any good either because his books made him a multi millionaire while he was still alive. In fact he specifically write the Godfather to try to get rich. What a hack, huh?I read a lot of mainstream stuff like all of Baldacci's, Metzler's, Morrell's, most of Ludlum's, as well as a great many classics - Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Great Gatsby, Crime and Punishment, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre (had to read both the Bronte Sisters), GRapes of Wrath, as well as some off the wall stuff like some of the writings from Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, and D'Tocqueville to name a few off the top of my head. So if you want to discuss the significance of the color yellow in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment or the significance of the color green in Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby we can do that. Or we can discuss how Plato purported that many ideas of his were actually Socrates' ideas in order to not suffer the same fate as Socrates. Or how amazing it was that Elexis D'Tocqueville predicted prior to the Civil war in Democracy in America that the United States and Russia would dominate the globe in the years to come. But please don't mock my literary palette because I hold the writings of JKR in great esteem. Anyone with such popularity is going to get dissenters. Congrats. You qualify.

Sweet Jesus, did I touch a nerve.Sorry if I did, but the Harry Potter = Masterpiece comment led me to believe you're not all that well read. But if you've got the ability to speak to both Baldacci and "Elexis" D'Tocqueville, I doff my cap to you. (Figuratively speaking of course, I'm not actually wearing a cap.) I'll leave you with two things:1. Lighten up Francis2. Harry Potter is not a literary masterpiece

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yeah, usually HP readers get all defensive about comments like that. I think a lot of people brush it off as kids crap, but there's a little more to it. Are they masterpieces? I wouldn't go that far.

Although if there are colleges offering courses on studying The Simpsons, I am sure at some point we'll be breaking down the Harry Potter series in a lit class.

 

[thayman]

...

Look, the term "masterpiece" should signify rare air. I don't think the Harry Potter series qualifies.Do you think the Chronicles of Naria series qualifies as a "masterpiece"? I love those books, have read them plenty of times, and I would never use that term to describe them.I'm a Harry Potter fan, but I think calling it a "masterpiece" is being a tad overzealous.

Well the series has sold nearly 400 million books through the first 6, that is pretty impressive IMHO. I'm not sure if I would call it a masterpiece or not, however I also don't recall a series of books that has got kids into reading so much. That's a fairly rare air.

 

[snorlax]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.

The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...

Tom Riddle's diary

Marvalo Gaunt's ring

Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)

Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)

unknown of Gryffindor

unknown of Ravenclaw

That is six and there is supposedly 7 that Harry and Albus have to destroy... but...

Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

Isn't the 7th Voldemort himself? 1/7 of his soul resides in himself, and the other 6/7 reside in 6 other objects.

No, there are 7 horcruxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horcrux#Horcr...y_Potter_novelsDon't remember where I read this, but the quote is "quoting wikipedia is like quoting 'some guy'". However, there it is.

Fair enough, I believe you. I should reread the book again.Here's what the article has to say about Nagini:

The great snake Nagini. Dumbledore believed the final Horcrux was originally to be made upon the murder of Harry Potter, considering his importance as the "Chosen One" as foretold by Sybill Trelawney's prophecy. Since that attempt failed, Dumbledore believed that the murder of Frank Bryce in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire may have been used to produced the last Horcrux, and that Nagini became the vessel, based on her behaviour and the control Voldemort exerts over her.[20] Dumbledore also states that Nagini "underlines the Slytherin connection".

That seems pretty convincing to me. Dumbledore is basically the voice of truth throughout the books; I think his actions in HBP will be justified in the final book. I'm putting my money on Nagini; that would also explain somewhat how Harry saw things from the snake's point of view in one of his visions.

 

[scoobygang]

...

Look, the term "masterpiece" should signify rare air. I don't think the Harry Potter series qualifies.Do you think the Chronicles of Naria series qualifies as a "masterpiece"? I love those books, have read them plenty of times, and I would never use that term to describe them.I'm a Harry Potter fan, but I think calling it a "masterpiece" is being a tad overzealous.

Well the series has sold nearly 400 million books through the first 6, that is pretty impressive IMHO. I'm not sure if I would call it a masterpiece or not, however I also don't recall a series of books that has got kids into reading so much. That's a fairly rare air.

Let's divorce ourselves from the notion that popularity is tied to literary merit. The second biggest literary sensation of the last decade or so was The DaVinci Code, and Dan Brown is not just a bad writer. He's an atrocious writer. .Rowling is a pretty good writer. And she has improved from the first book. Of course, I'd argue that she's also regressed as a writer since The Prisoner of Azakhban. As her books have reached Dickensian length, her writing has gotten flabbier.

 

[Kumerica]

...

Look, the term "masterpiece" should signify rare air. I don't think the Harry Potter series qualifies.Do you think the Chronicles of Naria series qualifies as a "masterpiece"? I love those books, have read them plenty of times, and I would never use that term to describe them.

I'm a Harry Potter fan, but I think calling it a "masterpiece" is being a tad overzealous.

Well the series has sold nearly 400 million books through the first 6, that is pretty impressive IMHO. I'm not sure if I would call it a masterpiece or not, however I also don't recall a series of books that has got kids into reading so much. That's a fairly rare air.

Let's divorce ourselves from the notion that popularity is tied to literary merit. The second biggest literary sensation of the last decade or so was The DaVinci Code, and Dan Brown is not just a bad writer. He's an atrocious writer. .Rowling is a pretty good writer. And she has improved from the first book. Of course, I'd argue that she's also regressed as a writer since The Prisoner of Azakhban. As her books have reached Dickensian length, her writing has gotten flabbier.

I wouldn't call Chronicles or HP masterpieces, though I would refer to LOTR as a masterpiece. I'm sure others would disagree. Regardless, I feel pretty secure in calling them all classics.Can't wait for the books, though. Hoping against hope for a Sirius comeback (of sorts).

 

[Challenge Everything]

I wouldn't call Chronicles or HP masterpieces, though I would refer to LOTR as a masterpiece. I'm sure others would disagree. Regardless, I feel pretty secure in calling them all classics.

Can't wait for the books, though. Hoping against hope for a Sirius comeback (of sorts).

To me, in the realm or writing but also fantasy writing everything is measured against LOTR. That series is just that good with that much detail.Harry Potter is a good and interesting series but compared to most books the writing is on par of a US newspaper. There is detail and mysteries but those hide the newspaper feel of the writing. You dont get that feeling when reading LOTR. Masterpieces... hardly, but great* books nonetheless.

* = fun, enjoying, interesting.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.

The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...

Tom Riddle's diary

Marvalo Gaunt's ring

Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)

Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)

unknown of Gryffindor

unknown of Ravenclaw

Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

Isn't the 7th Voldemort himself? 1/7 of his soul resides in himself, and the other 6/7 reside in 6 other objects.

No, there are 7 horcruxes.

No, Bouncing Beatnik is correct. There were 6 Horcruxes and 2 were destroyed. Chapter 23 is where this is said in HBP by Dumbledore. I dont believe that Voldy is out making new Horcruxes either because he is probably not aware of them being found and destroyed. The diary is the only one he knows, if he knows, of being destroyed. Dumbledore also says that Voldy found 2 and maybe 3 of the founders things to use as Horcruxes. I dont think he found anything for Gryffindor. I still say there are now only 3 to be found because the diary and ring are gone and Wormtail needed one to get Voldy back.

Harry needs to find the Locket, Cup and something else.

An interesting theory I read recently is that the readers have been introduced to each of the Horcruxes in each of the books.

 

[snorlax]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.

The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...

Tom Riddle's diary

Marvalo Gaunt's ring

Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)

Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)

unknown of Gryffindor

unknown of Ravenclaw

Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

Isn't the 7th Voldemort himself? 1/7 of his soul resides in himself, and the other 6/7 reside in 6 other objects.

No, there are 7 horcruxes.

No, Bouncing Beatnik is correct. There were 6 Horcruxes and 2 were destroyed. Chapter 23 is where this is said in HBP by Dumbledore. I dont believe that Voldy is out making new Horcruxes either because he is probably not aware of them being found and destroyed. The diary is the only one he knows, if he knows, of being destroyed. Dumbledore also says that Voldy found 2 and maybe 3 of the founders things to use as Horcruxes. I dont think he found anything for Gryffindor. I still say there are now only 3 to be found because the diary and ring are gone and Wormtail needed one to get Voldy back.

Harry needs to find the Locket, Cup and something else.

An interesting theory I read recently is that the readers have been introduced to each of the Horcruxes in each of the books.

1. I don't know why you're correcting me. I already admitted I was wrong.2. I still don't think Wormtail needed to use a horcrux to bring Voldemort back. There surely would've been more clues in the books if that were the case.

3. I still feel very strongly that Nagini is one of the horcruxes. The locket is clearly a horcrux as well, and it's likely in the possession of Aberforth, with Mundungus and Kreacher being the respective second and third choices. Hufflepuff's cup is a likely third horcrux. Because the only relics of Gryffindor are his sword and the sorting hat, both with virtually no chance of being a horcrux, I think the fourth horcrux is a relic of Ravenclaw. The only other option is some surprise to wrap up the plot, but there are plenty of other ways to do that. I'm definitely against Harry or Harry's scar being a horcrux; even if one of them is, there is NO WAY he is going to die in this book. That would ruin the series. Also, it would decrease the possibilities for ending the book with the word "scar."

4. I have read that theory as well, and it does appeal to my sense of order, but I would need to look at lists of possible horcruxes in each of the books again to see how much I like it. Going off memory quickly: Book 1, ?; Book 2, Diary; Book 3, ?; Book 4, Snake; Book 5, Locket; Book 6, Ring. I'm not even sure if those are the books those things were introduced in.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I thought the locket was at the Black's house. In book 5 when they were cleaning there was mention of a lockett that they couldn't open. If RAB is Regulus, that might be the lockett that they are looking for. Or maybe that's too easy or too much of an assumption.

 

[texasyankee]

I thought the locket was at the Black's house. In book 5 when they were cleaning there was mention of a lockett that they couldn't open. If RAB is Regulus, that might be the lockett that they are looking for. Or maybe that's too easy or too much of an assumption.

The locket from the Grimmald Place house most likely the Horcrux. However there is no gaurantee that it still in the house. Dung might have pilfered it, Sirius might have thrown it out.

 

[snorlax]

I thought the locket was at the Black's house. In book 5 when they were cleaning there was mention of a lockett that they couldn't open. If RAB is Regulus, that might be the lockett that they are looking for. Or maybe that's too easy or too much of an assumption.

The locket from the Grimmald Place house most likely the Horcrux. However there is no gaurantee that it still in the house. Dung might have pilfered it, Sirius might have thrown it out.

That's exactly what I was saying above. Because Mundungus Fletcher was stealing things from the Black house and selling stolen goods to Aberforth, the current most likely holders of the locket are Aberforth, Mundungus, and Kreacher (in case he stowed it away), in that order.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The new OotP Trailer is on Yahoo & YouTube. This movie looks tons better than the ones before it so far. No word on how long it is though.

Less than 90 days for the book.

 

[xfactor99]

So if you want to discuss the significance of the color yellow in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment or the significance of the color green in Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby we can do that. Or we can discuss how Plato purported that many ideas of his were actually Socrates' ideas in order to not suffer the same fate as Socrates. Or how amazing it was that Elexis D'Tocqueville predicted prior to the Civil war in Democracy in America that the United States and Russia would dominate the globe in the years to come. But please don't mock my literary palette because I hold the writings of JKR in great esteem. Anyone with such popularity is going to get dissenters. Congrats. You qualify.

I only read Crime and Punishment once..could you elaborate on the significance of the color yellow? I don't remember that at all...

Yeah, usually HP readers get all defensive about comments like that. I think a lot of people brush it off as kids crap, but there's a little more to it. Are they masterpieces? I wouldn't go that far.

Although if there are colleges offering courses on studying The Simpsons, I am sure at some point we'll be breaking down the Harry Potter series in a lit class.

Our rival high school already offers a class solely dedicated to the rigorous literary analysis of the Harry Potter books.

 

[Das Boot]

Rowling: Please don't give away Potter details

NEW YORK (AP) -- J.K. Rowling has a request for those with inside dirt on her seventh and final Harry Potter book: Please keep it to yourself.

"We're a little under three months away, now, and the first distant rumblings of the weirdness that usually precedes a Harry Potter publication can be heard on the horizon," Rowling wrote on her Web site Monday.

"I want the readers who have, in many instances, grown up with Harry, to embark on the last adventure they will share with him without knowing where they are they going."

The author's comments came in response to an April 28 editorial by a leading Potter fan site, http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org, which noted that it had been receiving "spoiler" e-mails -- and expected many more -- alleging advance knowledge of the book's contents.

Rowling has said two major characters will die in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," which comes out July 21. Although the Potter books are released under tight security, copies often are obtained before the publication date.

"If Harry dies, we don't want to know about it until J.K. Rowling decides to tell us," Leaky Cauldron webmaster Melissa Anelli wrote. "And if you decide to tell us before that, you'll incur the wrath of a staff of almost 200, most of whom have been waiting almost 10 years for these final revelations and can NEVER get back the moment you rob by spoiling them.

"That's some wrath right there. We own pitchforks, hot wax and feathers. And we're not afraid to use them."

On Monday, Rowling seconded the fan site's plea.

"Some, perhaps, will read this and take the view that all publicity is good publicity, that spoilers are part of hype, and that I am trying to protect sales rather than my readership," Rowling wrote on http://www.jkrowling.com. "However, spoilers won't stop people buying the book, they never have -- all it will do is diminish their pleasure in the book."

More than 300 million copies have sold of the previous six Potter books. "Deathly Hallows" has more than 1 million pre-orders on Amazon.com alone.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I thought the locket was at the Black's house. In book 5 when they were cleaning there was mention of a lockett that they couldn't open. If RAB is Regulus, that might be the lockett that they are looking for. Or maybe that's too easy or too much of an assumption.

I have been saying this for a while. Mostly because she needs to find a way to get through a few of the things that need to happen in this book quick. There really are a lot of things to tie up.

 

[Sack-Religious]

Just throwing it out there.

Is it possible that Nagini is the same snake that Harry let out of the zoo back in the Philospher's Stone?

 

[Sack-Religious]

This is from Chap. 36 of GOF:

"He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said that the protection my --- my mother left me --- he'd have it too. And he was right -- he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face."

For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes.

Not sure what to make of that. I've read interviews where she's stated that this look from Dumbledore is very imoportant.

Interesting. I just finished re-reading GOF and that passage stuck out to me, as well. I may have taken it too literally, but I thought Dumbledore had that look because he realized that Voldemort still didn't undertstand the "ancient and powerful magic" that protects Harry and that it would make him vulnerable and over-confident.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

This is from Chap. 36 of GOF:

"He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said that the protection my --- my mother left me --- he'd have it too. And he was right -- he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face."

For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes.

Not sure what to make of that. I've read interviews where she's stated that this look from Dumbledore is very imoportant.

Interesting. I just finished re-reading GOF and that passage stuck out to me, as well. I may have taken it too literally, but I thought Dumbledore had that look because he realized that Voldemort still didn't undertstand the "ancient and powerful magic" that protects Harry and that it would make him vulnerable and over-confident.

Harry's protection is/was based on love. I've always interpreted this to mean that Voldemort has basically infected himself with some essence humanity. From the beginning there has been a part of Voldemort in Harry, but until he used Harry's blood to resurrect himself that wasn't true the other way. I think the look of triumph shows that Dumbledore knows that the playing field has been leveled, and that there is now something good in Voldemort that can be exploited in the final confrontation.

 

[snorlax]

Just throwing it out there.Is it possible that Nagini is the same snake that Harry let out of the zoo back in the Philospher's Stone?

I don't think so, and I don't see how that would affect the plot.

 

[Marc Levin]

Funny how it seems like the real 'masterpieces' are often only enjoyed by a select percentage of the population, whereas this book has more likely drawn in a bigger crowd than any recent series.

My guess is that both Dickens and Poe were very widely read among the then civilized world. And both authors' major works are literary masterpieces.I think it takes more than wide distribution to go from being a John Grisham money making interesting novel to being a book of literary significance. Then again, we may, in this current day and age, define "masterpiece" as well read.Were the Winnie the Pooh series of books masterpieces? What about Alice in Wonderland? What about LOTR? Just b/c it is designed for children does not mean it is not a literary masterpiece.The Potter series is very entertaining and is clearly a literary PHENOMENON. Whether that makes them a masterpiece for the ages is a question of interpretation of the word used.You have a good point, Mr. Manback.

 

[saintsfan]

Funny how it seems like the real 'masterpieces' are often only enjoyed by a select percentage of the population, whereas this book has more likely drawn in a bigger crowd than any recent series.

My guess is that both Dickens and Poe were very widely read among the then civilized world. And both authors' major works are literary masterpieces.I think it takes more than wide distribution to go from being a John Grisham money making interesting novel to being a book of literary significance. Then again, we may, in this current day and age, define "masterpiece" as well read.Were the Winnie the Pooh series of books masterpieces? What about Alice in Wonderland? What about LOTR? Just b/c it is designed for children does not mean it is not a literary masterpiece.The Potter series is very entertaining and is clearly a literary PHENOMENON. Whether that makes them a masterpiece for the ages is a question of interpretation of the word used.You have a good point, Mr. Manback.

Personally, I think the question of it being a literary masterpiece is beside the point.First, anything that gets kids to read is great in my book. Reading Harry Potter might cause kids to pick up other books and that's a great thing. Second, the Potter books WILL be taught in schools. It's only a matter of time. There are college classes on almost every conceivable subject, why not Potter? Third, only the literary snobs have issues with the Potter books. Who cares what they think? In 1964, these people were calling the Beatles a fad. What do they know? Stuff that is popular can also be good.

 

[Sack-Religious]

Just throwing it out there.Is it possible that Nagini is the same snake that Harry let out of the zoo back in the Philospher's Stone?

I don't think so, and I don't see how that would affect the plot.

Fair enough. However, given JKR's penchant for foreshadowing it wouldn't surprise me that one of Harry's first "magical" actions was freeing the very snake that becomes a servant to Voldemort. It doesn't necessarily have to affect or further the plot, but there could be a time in the last book where Harry comes face to face with Nagini and there is a moment of recognition, which could affect where the story is going.

 

[Marc Levin]

The Horcruxes and the possibility of Dumbledore not killing Voldy in the Ministry is a great simple theory. Harry probably described how Voldy came back with Wormtails procedure and made the connection. Which brings me to another simple theory.

The Horcruxes seemingly involve each house, so...

Tom Riddle's diary

Marvalo Gaunt's ring

Slytherin's locket (Slytherin)

Hufflepuff's cup (Hufflepuff)

unknown of Gryffindor

unknown of Ravenclaw

That is six and there is supposedly 7 that Harry and Albus have to destroy... but...

Voldy had to use one when Wormtail did his stuff according to being able to get a body back and such. And, would Voldy make another one just to replace that one? It appears that he couldnt and thus could only ever make 7 of them, to me in deciphering everything that we know about the Horcruxes.

One theory that is talked about frequently is that Harry himself is a Horcrux. That also fits with one of my pet theories about the last book; that we'll find out Harry is currently the last living decendent of Godric Gryffindor. Harry's family on the Potter (Wizarding) side is a complete mystery to this point, however his parents were hiding from Voldemort in Godric Hollow when everything went down. Of course there was also Harry's ability to pull the sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat, the last two house relics. It would also complete the symmetry Harry has with Voldemort, and sets up the final confrontation as part of a much longer conflict between the two houses.

And would bring to life one of the thoughts I have always had - that Harry must sacrifice his life to actually kill Voldemort and that, to kill Harry, Voldemort must kill a part of himself.Remember, they always talk about how Voldemort put some of himself into Harry when he confronted him as a baby.

I could se the "ROTJ" ending where Dumbledore, Sirius, Harry's Parents and Harry are all together in a place beyond the physical world.

 

[Marc Levin]

This is from Chap. 36 of GOF:

"He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said that the protection my --- my mother left me --- he'd have it too. And he was right -- he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face."

For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes.

Not sure what to make of that. I've read interviews where she's stated that this look from Dumbledore is very imoportant.

Interesting. I just finished re-reading GOF and that passage stuck out to me, as well. I may have taken it too literally, but I thought Dumbledore had that look because he realized that Voldemort still didn't undertstand the "ancient and powerful magic" that protects Harry and that it would make him vulnerable and over-confident.

Harry's protection is/was based on love. I've always interpreted this to mean that Voldemort has basically infected himself with some essence humanity. From the beginning there has been a part of Voldemort in Harry, but until he used Harry's blood to resurrect himself that wasn't true the other way. I think the look of triumph shows that Dumbledore knows that the playing field has been leveled, and that there is now something good in Voldemort that can be exploited in the final confrontation.

I think Voldemort infected himself with love and and with a spell that is in Harry's blood - one more in the "kill Harry, kills himself" line of thought.

 

[Sack-Religious]

Levin's last post just made me think of something.

Unless Harry can "sneak" up on Voldemort and catch him unaware, wouldn't he have to kill him without magic? As seen in the GOF when 2 wands that share the same magical core are forced to battle it creates a Priori Incantatem, which won't really allow one wand to triumph over the other.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Swedish Deathly Hallows translation may give cluesTilden, the Swedish Potter publisher, has revealed on their official website that JK Rowling has provided an alternative DH title to foreign countries: Harry Potter and the Relics of Death. The second title was released by Jo and Bloomsbury because the phrase "Deathly Hallows" is hard to translate without being able to read the novel.Relics of Death can easily translate to dödsrelikerna, and now many are speculating over exactly what these relics are. Thanks to everyone who e-mailed with this information!

 

[snorlax]

Levin's last post just made me think of something. Unless Harry can "sneak" up on Voldemort and catch him unaware, wouldn't he have to kill him without magic? As seen in the GOF when 2 wands that share the same magical core are forced to battle it creates a Priori Incantatem, which won't really allow one wand to triumph over the other.

I thought that only happened because they casted spells at the exact same time that collided.

 

[snorlax]

Just throwing it out there.Is it possible that Nagini is the same snake that Harry let out of the zoo back in the Philospher's Stone?

I don't think so, and I don't see how that would affect the plot.

Fair enough. However, given JKR's penchant for foreshadowing it wouldn't surprise me that one of Harry's first "magical" actions was freeing the very snake that becomes a servant to Voldemort. It doesn't necessarily have to affect or further the plot, but there could be a time in the last book where Harry comes face to face with Nagini and there is a moment of recognition, which could affect where the story is going.

I could see a slight possibility that this is the case, but I think it's unlikely for three reasons: 1. I think Voldemort has had Nagini longer than Harry has been alive, but this is not necessarily true. 2. I think Harry would've felt something more familiar when he saw things from the perspective of the snake. 3. I think that the snake Harry released was a good snake, whereas Nagini is clearly evil. Also, I am firmly in the "Nagini is a horcrux" camp, so I think that Harry remembering Nagini might make him more difficult to kill, which would be an unpleasant plot twist.

 

[Challenge Everything]

OOTP 138 mins longThe British Board of Film Classification has revealed that the fifth Harry Potter movie will be 138 minutes long. Also, the movie will be rated 12A in the UK and PG-13 in the US (as we reported previously).

For a large book to only get 2 hours and 18 minutes out of it leaves me skeptcal. They ruined Azkaban... hopefully OOTP is noy ruined.