Episode #13: The Deathly Hallows Theory Explained
Since December 21, we’ve all had pretty much one question on our mind: what is the meaning of “Deathly Hallows?” We recorded some of our initial thoughts last time, and followed up with two blog posts with a more fleshed out theory: that the “Deathly Hallows” is the name for the magic that Lily used to protect Harry from Lord Voldemort by dying for him out of love. In this podcast, we go into greater detail on our theory and discuss how all the pieces fit together, incorporating many loosed ends, including horcruxes, occlumency, legilimens and that gleam in Dumbledore’s eye at the end of Book 4. It’s our theory, and we’re sticking to it!
You can listen to the podcast using the player below, or download it directly as an mp3.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:58 am
It’s a good theory. There are a few things working against it:
1) The translations of the title into other languages point more strongly to the Horcrux meaning.
2) We always forget, and JKR always reminds us, that each book brings something new into the mix. Yes, we have more to draw on than we did with previous books, but I don’t think we’re thinking enough about what we don’t know.
3) I think JKR is too original to imitate the Gospels like that. Her books are more thought through than the third Matrix movie.
Some side points:
1) The real hero of the series is Lily Potter. She is the one who made Harry invincible to LV.
2) If this love magic was so unknown to everyone, how did Dumbledore put it all together in less than a day back in 1981?
3) How did Quirrell shake Harry’s hand at the Leaky Cauldron back in Book One?
December 26th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Can you provide a link to the foreign titles of the book?
As an aside, The Matrix is a perfect example of my theory about the first installment encapsulating the ideas of the entire series; the folks that made The Matrix never thought they would get a sequel or series, and so the first movie stands on it’s own. The stuff in the second and third movies are simply expansions on the same themes, only slightly more addled.
Regarding Quirrell: if you want to get technical, Voldie did not enter Quirrell’s turban until after he botched the Gringotts job, so when he met Harry in The Leaky Cauldron, he could touch him just fine. Or it could just be a slip up, these things happen (cf. the wand order debacle).
December 26th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Sorry, I don’t have the link. I found it by browsing randomly.
December 27th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
You mentioned a sacrifice to happen to invoke the magic to kill Voldemort, and that it will be either Harry, or Snape, but you forgot about Wormtail - who owes Harry a life debt.
Pettigrew owes Harry his life for sparing it in book 3, so he has to repay the debt, and this provides the perfect avenue to atone this. It all falls on Wormtail to save the wizarding world due to Harry’s compassion or “love.”
You basic theory is plausible, but of all the podcasts and theories I have seen, they neglect to mention Peter Pettigrew.
December 27th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Webby: that is so funny! I just told Penny yesterday, “I forgot about Wormtail!” I think it is possible that Wormtail dies to protect Harry, making Harry immune to Voldemort once again. Voldie tries to kill Harry, the spell backfires, and ding dong the witch is dead.
December 28th, 2006 at 1:09 am
Okay, I took a closer look into this spell which I am simply, on the basis my assumption and your theory, going to call henceforward “the deathly hallows” instead of “whatever happened to Harry when Lily died.” J. K. Rowling herself, in an interview with Melissa Anelli and Emerson Spartz, speaks, to some degree, about how this magic works. Why for instance James’ death though willing, did not protect both Harry and Lily. she says that although he was willing to die for his family and certainly did put himself in front of them, he was going to get killed anyway. so he didn’t have a choice. If he had been given the choice he would certainly have provided that protection, but Lily was given a clear choice and James was not. It was a great interview by the way you can read the transcript of it here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm
So, for the deathly hallows to work again against Voldemort he would first have to be fool enough to give someone a choice like that again. And person A would have to be someone who had reason to take option dirtnap to save person B, then the artist formerly known as Tom Riddle would have to be be twice the fool, first to have given person A the choice to begin with then to attack person B after spending thirteen years paying for the last time he forgot about the deathly hallows. Okay, he’s ignorant of love, he tends to underestimate it’s power, but I think that’s a stretch. But, okay, maybe… maybe, maybe, maybe.
That being the case if we are going to go with the deathly hallows actually being Lord Voldy-thing’s cause of death, we have to first come up with two things:
1) Someone to whom he would give such a choice who has someone they would die for,
and
2)Some motivation for him to attack this second person knowing as he does now what the consequences will be.
This doesn’t point to Harry. Or to Wormtail, or even to Snape although I’d buy that.
It points to Narcissa.
Remember, Voldemort told Draco he would kill him if he didn’t kill Dumbledore, and he didn’t did he? Can’t you just see this scene: Voldy is going to kill Draco and Cissy is trying to protect him, but Voldy-thing doesn’t want to kill a faithful deatheater if he doesn’t have to, besides, maybe Bella asked him not to, or maybe, just maybe, Snape asked him not to. He loves her, I’m certain of it. He tells her to get out of the way, that she doesn’t have to die, but Draco has to go. She doesn’t move and like Lily he kills her. Later in the book, Draco having now turned against his former hero, Harry is finally ready to face Voldemort. The Horcruxes are gone and Harry finds him. But Draco is angry and has spent the entire year getting prepared for a duel to the death with Voldemort. Cuz Draco, unlike Harry and Voldemort, doesn’t know about the Deathly Hallows. Draco throws himself in front of Harry (perhaps not on purpose) as Voldemort casts an Avada Cadavra that is meant for Harry but hits Draco and rebounds back at Voldemort.
Okay I have gone on and on for ages but this is about the only way I can see this spell getting him a second time. Whaddya think?
Sorry if I ramble, I’m a bit of a yapper.
December 28th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Bev- I am interested to hear what Greg has to say but I really like that theory! It works with my thoughts that Draco (or snape) will die a hero in Harry’s eyes. I do think the Narcissa/Draco relationship is a very important one (especially when correlated to Lily/Harry) that should not be dismissed. That totally rocks! Good thinking and don’t worry about the rambling- some of my best husbands are ramblers!
I have never actually read the transcript of the interview with Melissa and Emerson but it has been referred to on the Potter and Muggle Cast podcasts so many times I feel like I have read it. In any event, they got a whole bunch of important stuff from JKR during it. (Repeat after me “I am not jealous”. “I am not Jealous”.)
December 28th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
another thought on the deathly hallows and the prospect of Harry dying. I almost forgot about the prophecy (which I have not heard referenced in a while):
The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches …
Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies …
And the Dark Lord will mark him as equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not …
And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives.
The last statement is what I find crucial. From a literary standpoint, how can you have closure to this series if Voldemort kills Harry? Sure, you can have an act occur that will kill off Voldermort after he kills Harry, but that act brings no resolution to this tale - not technically speaking of course, but I am sure you get my meaning (cannot think of the literary terms right now - headache).
So, strictly interpreting the prophecy, one of them will survive and can be inferred will thrive henceforth. There has been much discussion on JK wanting closure to the series and protecting the Harry Potter character from continuing - and one easy way is to kill him off. But I find it difficult for JK to take the easy route out here. It would seem almost antithetical to everything she has built up and invested.
So I say Harry lives. Harry is spared by an act of sacrifice (Wormtail) and Voldemort dies at the hands of Harry. But this brings us to the next question: If Harry kills Voldemort, would his soul split as well? It would be an act of murder. Or would there be a scenario that Voldermort dies of his own hand in battle with Harry? Remember the great pains Dumbledor took to prevent Draco from killing him so that Draco would not have the stain of being a murderer? How could Harry not get stained from killing Voldemort? This in theory would split Harry’s soul and therefore Harry would no longer be pure of heart and soul.
I ramble and ramble. Seems like a great next topic to discuss.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Great point, Webby. It sounds like it’s not good enough for Voldemort to die by having an AK rebound on him.
(Voldemort) must die at the hand of (Harry)
or
(Harry) must die at the hand of (Voldemort).
That makes things messy in a christian-inspired allegory. Of course, I don’t think it would be messy in a Jewish morality tale. Moses killed Og. David killed Goliath. I don’t think Judaism would consider Harry killing Voldemort a negative soul-splitting act. But just as Tolkien considered it a happy ending only if the wicked or circumstances kill the wicked, with the good guys only doing their best to defend themselves, I suspect JKR has similar ideals. Hence the tension.
BTW, browsing thru an old JKR interview, I noticed that there was a considerable amount of secrecy on JKR’s part about some spell Dumbledore attempted to cast on Voldie at the Ministry in Book 5. Does anyone remember what that was about?
December 29th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Raffy, I do recall vaguely that bit about the Dumbledor spell attempt. Will have to go back and see if I can find the reference any place else. Greg, Penny? Thoughts on that one?
To me, it just sounds so odd that JKR has put so much literary emphasis on the purety of the soul, the splitting of the soul in a murder, the evilness of Tom Marvolo Riddle in his search for immortality by splitting his soul, Dumbledor preventing Draco from killing, and just sit back and write Harry Potter killing Voldemort after highlighting the power of Love that Harry possesses…
Unless…
There is another hidden power that Harry posseses that Voldermort does not know. The prophecy is EXPLICIT in that point, and Voldemort himself realized his mistake for overlooking/underestimating that old magic, but now it is no longer unknown. So Harry still possesses a power that Tom Riddle is still unaware of.
Sometimes I wonder if we overanalyze things a bit and forget to look at the obvious here. Sometimes the best place to hide something is in plain site. So there has to be a reference already made that points to this and we ourselves have overlooked it by our desires to be clever with our own analysis.
Just a thought. Do I have an answer to this? Obviously not, or I would be writing these books, and I by no means am qualified as a literary author - I just like to ramble nothingness from time to time.
Still, Harry lives. Voldermort dies. Wormtail dies. Draco lives. Narsissa dies. Lucious lives, but is only a shell like Neville’s parents. Ron lives, but is mamed similar to Charlie and still marries Hermione.
But what about Percy? That is another character that has dropped off the map. I find it hard to believe that JKR spent all this time and effort building his character up over 6 books (granted in the background) to just drop off and not be heard from again. So what role does he play in all of this. I have a feeling that the Weasley family will have a big role. Remember there is a big subplot between the Malfoy and Weasley families. I put my money on the Weasley family, they have more resources (more family members) than the Malfoy’s. And yet another tangent has been created.
I predict book seven to be 1250 pages. Approximately 4 pounds of paper.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Webby: If Voldie is killed because of a Deathly Hallows protection similar to how he got it from Baby Harry, Harry wont have to kill anyone, it will simply be Voldie’s evil backfiring on him. Poetic Justice?
Bev: Awesome theory! I think we’re going to have to rethink things a bit as y’all have brought up some good points. Still, I think we are on the right track (vs. the theory that the Deathly Hallows somehow refers to the Horcruxes).
December 29th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Guys, fabulous podcast. This topic could keep us going until the release of the book.
For me the big question is what role does Hogwarts play in the final installment? It’s the source of old magic and there’s a HUGE braintrust there in the form of former head masters. How is Ms. Rowling going to get the kids back to school? I believe it has to happen. I can see three houses returning, with the Slytherins going their own way. The magical world is now in open warfare and The Order along with The DA should play a pivotal role in the final book.
Other big questions: What’s the significance of Godric’s Hallow? Who’s going to die? How many of the Weasley’s will make it? Now that the Ministry has a decent leader, what role do they play? Will the Minister be able to unite the wizarding community?
It’s going to be a fun ride, and I hope Webby is right and it’s 1200+ pages!
December 29th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Ok, if Voldermort will die from teh protection, who will choose to sacrifce themselves to save who? I don’t think it would be Narcissa. If Voldermort goes to kill Draco, I doubt he would give the choice to her to live. Lucious proved incompitant, as did Draco. Voldermort would not have the malice intent towards either of them than he had for Harry.
That Hallow’s Eve, Voldemort went to kill Harry because he was a perceived threat to him, and therefore went with malicious intent. In his mind, it was a single minded-act. Did James have to die? Yes, because you have the inference that he is a descendent of Godric Griffendor and James’ death would also have meaning. This would also lend to the theory that more than one horcrux/artifact was at the cottage. Lily was not important to Voldemort in that respect - so she had a choice.
The same cannot be said for Narcissa. Voldemort would want to dispose of Lucious and Draco because of their failures, not the threat of them, so if Narcissa were to sacrifice herself for either of their lives, it would be only a casualty of circumstance. So if not the Malfoy’s, then who?
Ah, I say the Weasley’s. The Weasley’s are also one of the few remaining “pure” wizarding families left. But the fact has not been very prominent and I think it will become front and center here. What if the Weasley’s - or more specifically Molly Weasley was a descendent of Goddric Griffendor and not the Potter’s? She has the clock and Dumbledor has made specific references to the uniqueness of the clock before - it has special qualities not seen anywhere else in the wizarding world. Would make sense, too, along with the sorting hat as well.
So maybe Molly will die sacrificing herself for? Harry again? Voldermort is prone to forgetting details - his primary weakness given his hubris and quest for power. I think there may be more to Molly than meets the eye here. She is always the most prominent family member outside of Ron. She has always thought of Harry as a son - so there is great love in that relationship.
It would have to be a powerful sacrifice to invoke that kind of magic again and I cannot think of any other relationship strong enough to rival that. Yes, Narcissa loves Draco, but I don’t think the bond is that strong, it seems more out of self preservation than anything - the Malfoy family never really displayed any type of personal strength. Voldemort does not fear the Malfoy’s, but he has deep respect of the four founders and any descendent would demand that from him. Harry is a threat according to the prophecy, nothing more. I don’t think Harry is a Griffendor descendent, the Weasley children are - remember, Harry pulled out the sword defending Ginny Weasley.
Wow, that actually ties in quite nicely. Thoughts on this direction?
December 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Future podcast idea: Rufus Scrimgeour
Sorry for the “spam” folks, but I’m not sure how to contact you otherwise?
December 29th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
okay - my spelling is horrible up there… take with grain of salt please.
December 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
“Remember the great pains Dumbledor took to prevent Draco from killing him so that Draco would not have the stain of being a murderer? How could Harry not get stained from killing Voldemort? This in theory would split Harry’s soul and therefore Harry would no longer be pure of heart and soul.”
Webby -I remember this , but you are forgetting that Dumbledore also told Harry that he MUST kill voldemort. In HBP when Harry and Dumbledore were discussing the horcruxes and the prophecy this is how part of the conversation went (don’t laugh I am writing this from memory so it may not be exactly right):
“I’ve got to try and kill him, or - ”
“Got to? Of course you’ve got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you’ve tried! We both know it! Imagine, please, just for a moment, that you had never heard of the prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now? Think!”
Harry thought. He thought of his mother, his father, and sirius. He thought of Cedric Diggory. He thought of all the terrible things Voldemoret had done. A flame seemed to leap inside his chest searing his throat.
“I’d want him finished. And I’d want to do it.”
“Of course you would!”
Dumbledore is not only Not telling Harry Not to kill Voldemort (any English teacher would have a feel day with that sentence) but he is actively acknowledging that Harry MUST do it. I think the difference between Harry killing Voldemort and Draco killing Dumbledore is the purpose. Harry is killing Voldemort, not just to exact revenge (although that is probably the motivating factor that will enable Harry to do it) but to free the world of his evil. Draco would have killed Dumbledore for no reason other than the fact that Voldemort ordered him to do so (with the threat of killing him and his family)- no greater good there.
Also, don’t forget. Dumbledore defeated the dark wizard Grindewald. I am assuming that means he killed him. I think DUmbledore realizes that sometimes a person must kill another one in order to achieve a greater good (which sort us brings us back to the conversation on snape and whether the ends justifies the means with his killing of Dumbledore).
Finally, in that same chapter in HBP, Dumbledore himself says that Harry is setting too much store by the prophecy. Dumbledore asks harry , “do you think that every prophecy in the hall of prophesies has been fulfilled? Of course not.” I think this was a bit weak on the part of JKR
December 29th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
woops I don’t know what happened to the end of my comment (WHO ARE THE MODERATORS ON THIS BLOG ANYWAY?@?)
Anyway, I think this is weak on JKR’s side- I think thi is her way of telling her readers that we are setting too much store by the prophecy. I think she wrote the prophecy in OoTP and then when she was writing HBP she realized it did not fit in with waht will ultimately happen and she had to back pedal a bit. Just a thought.
December 29th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Ok Penny, good thought. But let’s be nitpicky and analyze this more - as we are apt to do anyway here
Dumbledor “defeated” Grindewald. Harry “defeated” Voldermort the first time and obviously did not “kill” him. JKR is very careful when she uses defeat and killed. You can defeat someone without killing them - even the Dementors do not kill, just suck out the soul.
So, yes Harry has to attempt to “kill” Voldemort (per your paraphrase - and I remember that exchange as well and you are accurate in your recall). But I do not think Harry will actually “kill” Voldemort. Harry will defeat Voldemort and Voldemort will die, but Harry will not kill him. To kill another is an act of purpose and malice in other words murder, to kill with intent. And that act will split the soul. JKR has put too much emphasis on that issue for Harry to become a murderer - no matter how noble the act. Voldemort will have to die in battle with Harry - just not at the hands of Harry.
And with that, this is where I disagree with Greg. Harry will live. Volemort made the prophecy self-fulfilling, and it would be a cheap way out (from a literary sense) for Harry to die. Quoting from the last line of the prophecy “And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives.” So one has to survive. Both cannot die. This will lead to argument of choice over fate, but throwing in religious doctrine, you can have both. Your fate is determined, but your choices also define you fate. It’s sacred logic, not mortal logic. Or we could say Hallow Logic (ok - bad pun).
So maybe we read too much into this and should sometimes look at this on face value. Grindewald was “defeated” not killed, so Dumbledor’s soul is intact. Harry “defeated” Voldemort the first time - he was not killed obviously.
Ooh, I just had a tought that may undermine my own theory… Does your soul split only when killing with an unforgivable curse? Is it possible to kill in defense of oneself while not using an unforgivable curse and not split your soul? Dumbledor knew the Dark Arts, but chose not to use them. So could Harry kill Voldemort without intent and still keep his soul intact? (or does this still lend credence to my theory anyway - my head is spinning).
December 29th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Rob- I just read your comment. I have a few rebuttals. (spell check?) ?First of all- We did an episode a few weeks back on Hogwarts- don’t know if that one addressed any of your questions but we really enjoyed making htat one so maybe we’d do a Hogwarts 2 episode!
We (sort of ) discussed Godrics Hollow on Holloween. I am not sure what will happen there but would love to speculate on it. Perhaps we should discuss that whenever we debate with you and your wife (when will that happen?!?)
Finally- here is where I totally disagree with you (in the friendliest way of course). Do you really think that Rufus Scrimgeour is a “decent leader”? I think he is just as much of a figure head leader as fudge was. I also think he is trying so hard to show the world that he is on top of things with the volemort/death eater situation that he is completely ignoring the real problems. Remember the Stan Shunpike encarceration? Scrimgeour is so worried about how he looks in the wizarding world that he not only once- but twice approached Harry to be the “poster boy” for the ministry. Luckily, Harry didn’t fall for his manipulations. I think we have a far way to go before there is decent and effective leadership in the Ministry.
Perhaps once Arthur Weasley becomes the minister, things will actually change.
December 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Gosh, I am going to be sitting here all day:) responding (I have things to do people! But seriously, keep the comments coming- they rock!).
I hear what you are saying, Webby but as you mentioned JKR is very careful with the words she uses and Dumbleodre doesn’t respond to Harry that he must DEFEAT Vold.= he tells Harry that he’s Got to kill him- he do esn’t say straight out the word kill but he unquestionably responds to Harry’s statement of killing.
I have always wondered whether it would be justified for Harry to use an unforgivable (specifically AK) to kill Vold. I don’t know that there is another curse, jinx, hex etc. that would do the job. Me thinks it is time for Harry to go out to a shooting range and practice on some old Muggle rifles (how would that be for poetic justice to Voldemort)!
December 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Ok Penny, will let you get back to “work”
it’s time for Greg to repsond.
I love the idea of some old fashioned “Muggle Arts” doing in Voldemort. I think a nice crossbow arrow to the heart would do the trick.
I don’t think Harry can use an unforgivable curse - it requires a great deal of hatred and malice just to get AK to work - remember Harry attempted one at Snape? in HBP. I am thinking Harry may learn the spell Dumbledor attempted at the Ministry that Voldermort was only barely able to block with a conjured shield curse. Voldemort only truly feared Dumbledor and there is a reason why. Too many questions.
December 29th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Last parting thought I promise. I think there is no way for Harry to die to save the world via his sacrifice. That makes Harry to close to a Christ-like figure and I doubt LKR would even come close to broaching that subject. Plus, Harry would never have a choice to live from Voldermort.
This is just a shallow theory that holds no water.
December 29th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
I agree with you on your last thought. Greg is all into Harry being a Christ-like figure but I don’t think JKR would go there. ALTHOUGH, if that was her intention from the get go than she might not have an issue with it.
You don’t think Harry could summon up enough hatred and anger to AK voldemort? I do.
A lot of people speculate that Harry will use Gryffindor’s sword to do iin old voldie.
December 30th, 2006 at 1:34 am
Okay.. I said it was a stretch.
I could kinda see it but my hypothetical theory has a few holes in it, to be honest. For one thing, there is no wiggle room in “either must die at the hands of the other….” Harry is going to kil Voldy-thing, or Voldy-thing is going to kill Harry, Voldy isn’t going to kill himself by accident. If you think the prophecy will come true that is. If, like Dumbledore, you think we are setting too much store by the prophecy, then heck, all bets are off. Anything could happen. But, J. K. Rowling said she and Trelawney worded that prophecy very carefully, I doubt she would have bothered if it wasn’t reliable.
I’ve got an idea about soul splitting and murder though. I think the thing is that the soul splits when you kill someone but it’s not permanent unless you seal that piece in something else, (like a Horcrux). I think it heals and is scarred afterward like any physical part of you after being rent into pieces. Harry will never be the same after he kills Voldemort, of course he won’t, his soul will be whole but scarred, like that of anyone who has been on the front lines of a war.
I had another thought though. Forgive me for this, I’m just thinking in print here. But, what if the Deathly Hallows isn’t the spell with which Lily protected Harry? What if it’s actually the spell Dumbledore tried to use at the ministry? A related spell that would have a debilitating effect on Voldemort. Or what if it’s plural and not a verb? What if it’s the name of an entire subsection of magic which we will find out about somewhere behind that locked door in the department of mysteries? Sort of the super-powerful good guy’s answer to the unforgivable curses.
On an unrelated topic, J. K. said that someone would show magical ability late in life, she also said that there is a member of the order we haven’t met properly yet. I’m taking bets on Arabella Figg being both of those people.. Whaddya think?
Okay I’ve gone on long enough. those are Bev’s thoughts for the day….
December 30th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
I love your podcast!
if you already have not seen this you may find it interesting.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/955496.cms
December 31st, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Ms. Penny,
I think Scrimgeour is going to have to get his act together, quit playing political games, and get to hunting death eaters. You’re right though Penny, why should we expect anything else? I do hope the DA becomes a major force alongside the Order.
I guess we’ll see, and I’m still working on my wife to do a podcast with me!
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Wow, I don’t know what to say, you all have some really good points. I am somewhat bewitched by the idea of Harry as Christ-figure, but I admit that there is a lot about that theory that would say otherwise (the symbolism that books have in the books…oh, there’s not enough time to go into it all…). I do have some possible revisions to the theory that dont involve Harry dying (but still maintain our definition of deathly hallows), which perhaps we will discuss next time.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Bev pretty much summed up my thoughts above — I can’t see Voldy offering Harry a choice to live or die, and according to Jo that condition was necessary for Lily’s sacrifice to protect Harry.
Just wanted to add that I believe there is precedence in the wizarding world for a good wizard’s self/soul surviving intact when they have had to kill another wizard. I believe it’s Sirius who comments about Mad Eye Moody that he always brought dark wizards in alive when possible — implying (I think) that sometimes it WASN’T possible, and it was necessary for Moody to kill them. And Moody is still a good guy (unless we’re in for a big surprise in Book 7).
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 am
So what is the next podcast topic? and when? I’m ready.
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 am
We are actually going to record the episode sometime today- should be up tonight or tommorow morning
In the meantime, feel free to go to podcast alley and vote for us (shameless self promotion, I know!)
January 4th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I think that Dumolbore will come bak to life beacuse in the sixth book he dies but a phinox apers comeing out of the ashes and the phinox is always reborn from his ashes when it dies. i also read in an artical somwere that two main charecters will die i personally think that it will be harryand voldamort. i think that harry will continue to try and find the horcrux and then harry will continue to find them then when he has the last one valdamort will kill harry while he is holdin it in his hand and when the spell hits harry it will hit the last horcrux there for killing himself also.
now snape and draco malfoy: i think that draco and snape will join dracos dad as a death eater and will help voldamort find harry and keep track of what harry does.
another thought that i have is thatsnape may die beacuse he made an unbrekuble vowe thathe would not let draco get hurt and if he breakes the that promise he will die. in the 6th book draco dosnt want him to be here and he says he dosnt need a baby sitter. i think draco will go off and get hurt really baddly and snape will get blaimed for it terefor snape will die.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Great theories, guys! =) I must also say the “prognostication to end all prognostications” is one of the most interesting theories I’ve heard/read. The Deathly Hallows being magic spells have been suggested, but only in a very general sense. I hope you can build more on your theory and tell us about it in the next podcasts. =)
I’m also chiming in to say that JKR announced the title of Book 6 on her website on 20th December 2004, and within 24-48 hours, Bloomsbury and Scholastic announced the publication date, 16th July 2005. Apparently, it takes about 6 months from the date of submission of the manuscript, at the least, to edit and print the books. =)
January 10th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Clarification: “The Deathly Hallows being magic spells have been suggested, but only in a very general sense.” I meant that idea has been suggested by other fans, but only in a very general sense. One went far enough to say he/she thought The Deathly Hallows are the opposite of the Unforgivable Curses. I like your theory, though, and I hope to hear more about it soon.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Pretty full thread, but if you can bear one more comment:
Someone made and interesting point about there being a difference between “defeat” and “kill.”
It reminded me of a thought I had back when I first read the prophecy. The prophecy specifically refers to the “Dark Lord” - not to “Tom Riddle”. If the Dark Lord were to lose all of his power and his followers, and become nothing but a shell of Tom Riddle, one could say that the “Dark Lord” is dead (the whole “Dark Lord” being a metamorphisis TR did himself anyway). If Harry were to bring such an end about, he will have metaphorically “killed the Dark Lord” without commiting a literal killing. Makes me wonder if Dumbledore’s insistence on always calling LV “Tom,” and his insistence on teaching Harry about the Tom Riddle that LV used to be, is some sort of hint.
Prophecy’s are tricky, and I wouldn’t put it past JKR to use language in a sneaky way.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Hello Everyone,
This is the third episode I have listened to in this series, being kinda new to the whole podcast thing, and I can’t help but strongly feel that Greg is such a pretentious, pompous, self-centered, self-ascribed “Harry Potter” erudite!
To think that he is so self-convinced as to make the following statements in episode #13: “I’ve seen a lot of good theories but haven’t read into them very much because I think… mumble, stutter… I mean…. you know, THIS IS THE WAY I AM, I really think THIS IS THE RIGTH THEORY”… and Penny’s comment when she is FINALLY given a turn to speak about how”we all have to take Greg seriously, but somehow when anybody else talks”… giggle, coments on what Greg is doing which is playing with a puppet, shows his self-centeredness so vividly, he has no respect or regard for what anyone else has to opine, including his podcasting partner!!! And finally, his constant stating that “that’s where the current state of..I guess the HPProgs official theory…” “we’re not saying that other theories are incorrect we just, we’re very beholden to this theory, I think… I think… so that’s where I THINK things are going.” Just as clarification, is Penny part of HPProgs, or just a guest speaker? If she is part of HPProgs, then it seemed very obvious to me that she was not including herself in the absoluteness of GREG’S theory, since a couple of times she tried (to no avail) to interject when he was going on about it. Me, myself and I seems to be Gregs official theory (in my opinion).
I can at least say this one thing, I do agree with this comments on Snape and his final departing “instructions” to Harry. Snape, in my humble, un-pottercated opinion, is a good guy.
January 16th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I’m back — got a podcast or two behind, but I just want to assure everybody that I am NOT Laura Mallory!
Interesting point by Janice, which made a whole new thought pop into my head. I have always just assumed that Voldy would die at the end of the series; but the prophecy actually says “The one with the power to VANQUISH….” Maybe Harry won’t have to kill Voldy off to defeat him. After all, Dumbledore seemed to think that leaving Tom Riddle alive would be a worse punishment than killing him; maybe Harry will decide the same thing.
I wanted to add that I really enjoy coming on this site and reading everybody’s opinions. While I love the longer established HP sites as well, I have always been too intimidated to join in the forums because it seems like everything’s been talked about already. It’s nice to come here and feel like I can actually contribute something, maybe.
January 16th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Well we enjoy having you and what you bring to the discussion as well!
And similarly to your thoughts about vanquishing not meaning killing, I think someone brought up the point earlier that it never said that Dumbledore KILLED Grindewald. It only says (on the Chocolate Frog card) that he defeated Grindewald. I wonder if those two things will be connected. SHould be interesting.
January 16th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Also glad that you are NOT Laura Mallory. Not that we would get you confused. You know what you are talking about when it comes to Harry Potter.
January 24th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Another meaning of “hallow” (from the Oxford English Dictionary) is “A loud shout or cry, to incite dogs in the chase, to help combined effort, or to attract attention.” This is the noun form. The verb form is “1. trans. a. To chase or pursue with shouts. b. To urge on or incite with shouts. c. To call or summon in, back, etc. with shouting.”
Could the Deathly Hallows be “the shout that causes death”? Like maybe the AK spell that kills Voldemort?
July 12th, 2007 at 5:50 am
I too read that the translations of Deathly Hallows refers more to Hocruxes which kinda defeats this theory. The Swedish “alternate title” that would be easier to translate than “Deathly Hallows” is “Harry Potter and the Relics of Death”
read it here
http://www.beyondhogwarts.com/harry-potter/articles/into-the-deathly-hallows.html
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
so what happends at the end?