Episode #43: Making Sense of Deathly Hallows
*Deathly Hallows Spoilers Included*
It’s been less than a week since the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, yet most of us have now read the book more than once; inevitably, bits and pieces need to be re-read to make sense of them. In addition to re-reading, the comments on our last post were extremely amazing, and really helped make sense of the book. This week, we look back through the comments and pull out a few topics to discuss further: a possible relationship between Harry and Voldemort? Examples of Voldemort’s spells not working, references to Nazis, the fittingness of Snape’s death. What was the purpose of the epilogue? And what did we need the Deathly Hallows for anyhow? Of course, there’s more questions that need to be discussed (who discovered magic later in life? Where did Harry’s parents get all that money from?), but they’ll have to wait until next time.
Thanks so much for all the great comments, keep them coming, we couldn’t do the show without them!
In the News:
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is breaking sales records.
- JK Rowling on the Today show: Announces Encyclopedia of characters and talks about DH.
- Naomi Watts, Joseph Fiennes, and Stuart Townsend not necessarily in the Half Blood Prince movie.
Make sure to listen to our interview on The James Madison Show from Friday, July 20. The interview can be found a the website if you click the podcast button. Special thanks to James and Frank for having us on.
Don’t forget to order your HPProgs t-shirts! Contact us if you’re interested in a red, white or black limited edition t-shirt.
Join in on the HPProgs Thank-You Book to JK Rowling!
You can listen to the podcast with the player below, or download it directly as an mp3.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I want to thank you two sooooo much!!!! Now that i have read the 7th book, Im in Harry Potter withdrawals. But i have this podcast that has already put out a second post Deathly Hallows podcast…. I truly thank you two for your hard work..
July 26th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I know this isn’t about Deathly Hallows but anyway I’m posting it here.
I just went to see OOTP and I really liked it! I liked the change of the Dementors! They are far more creepy now. I would have liked to see more of Tonks. I just went to see OOTP and I really liked it! The only thing that I found kind of weird was the way Umbridge got in the Room of Requirement and that Dobby was left out of the movie being a so important character of DH and that includes the Goblet of Fire movie. Also, the Death-Eaters flying??? ANYONE?
PD: I saw when Bellatrix said Avada Kedavra and killed Sirius. He fall trough the veil after being hit with the curse.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:08 am
“I just went to see OOTP and I really liked it!”
Oops! I put that twice…hehe!
July 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am
….i had to look up teddy ruxpin.
that would be a scary movie if he came and killed people. with his weird confused look…..wow
good episode!
July 26th, 2007 at 6:45 am
I read on JK Rowling’s site that she gave an interview with someone from THe LEaky Cauldron. Can you link to this on your site? I can’t find it on theirs.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Just saw an interview with J.K. Rowling on the Today show (NBC) she will be on again tomorrow and on Sunday (evening I think, didn’t catch what time) there will be a one hour Harry Potter special with her. She did say she is planning to write a H.P. encyclopedia, which will add to what was written in the epilogue, among other things. She said the headmaster is “new”, and the encyclopedia will expound on what everyone is doing. She said she’s “done” with H.P. books but then the interviewer said: “She’s done? stay tuned to see what she says tomorrow.” interesting….I guess you’ll be able to download this interview on NBC.com later in the day. Now I’m going to download this podcast to listen to in the car.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:13 am
guys - the picture on the cover is easy . . .
It’s the ending scene where (now moldy) Voldy casts “Avada Kedavra” and Harry casts “Expelliarmus” . . . Harry is reaching to catch his wand, Moldy Voldy is reeling from his deflected spell as the sun is coming up and the Hogwarts crew watches on . . . One miss here is that Mary forgot to include Harry’s wand, but that might have been a spoiler so they may have opted to take it out . . .
July 26th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Vince: I guess what was confusing was the fact that Harry didn’t have a wand, which he clearly did in the book. I don’t think including the wand would have been a spoiler…I don’t think I could have told the difference between wand woods just from an illustration.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:38 am
I find the theme of Avada Kedavra vs. expelliarmus very interesting. If AK is exersizing total domination over another person and expelliarmus is removing their magical power… isn’t it ironic that Voldemort was brought down by the collision of the two? His fear of death rebounding against the idea of mercy. (Or perhaps expelliarmus could be the idea of something worse than death.)
The Holocaust themes were very strong throughout the Ministry section. “Magic is Might” reminded me (perhaps erroneously) of the “arbeit macht frie” (work makes free) slogan over the gate in Aushwitz.
Re Snape. The whole “Prince’s Tale” was just so sad that the only thing that comforts me is the fact that Snape pretty much brought the situation on himself. If he had been willing to let go of his general prejudice against Muggle-borns, or at least tried to treat Harry as his own person instead of James 2.0, everything might have played out differently. But I still want to well up every time I think of Dumbledore seeing the doe and asking, “Still?” And Snape saying “Always.” Oh man… it’s sad no matter how you slice it.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Marvolo is related to the Pervells and thus related to Harry - It’s in “King’s Cross” . . . Voldy’s related to the second brother, Harry descendant from the 3rd and youngest brother. So yeah, they are related . . . which makes sense because the Sorting Hat almost sorted him into Slytherin . . . donchathink?
July 26th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Well, he also had a piece of Voldemort’s soul stuck to his… that could confuse any sentinent hat
July 26th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Nice pull Vince, I hadn’t recalled that from King’s Cross. Regarding sorting: I think we’ve seen plenty of evidence that what house you are sorted into has absolutely nothing to do with who you are descended from.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:41 am
On the wand thing, my feeling is that if he had it, it would clearly indicate Harry triumphing over Moldy Voldy . . . Before reading the book, it could be read that Voldy was attacking Harry - now we know better. If he had the wand, it would have tilted towards Harry . . .
On the Swastika thing - it’s actually a Hindi symbol originally. Hitler reversed it. Here in Japan, temples are still indicated by the original symbol (before it became a swastika). I look at the ministry as allegory and metaphor for what’s happening both in the english and US governments these days, both being on a fast-track to becoming the next fascist regime. Degradation and suspension of rights, media lies, the whole deal . . .
July 26th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Agreed on the the sorting thing . . . i stand corrected.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:43 am
The link to the third news article, “Naomi Watts, Joseph Fiennes, and Stuart Townsend not necessarily in the Half Blood Prince movie.” is invalid
July 26th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Thanks Daniel- I fixed it.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Great job on this podcast! You two are so insightful. I just have one question: why did Voldemort think he alone knew about the Room of Requirement when Malfoy used it to repair the Vanishing Cabinet the previous year? Surely he would have wondered how Malfoy got the Death Eaters into Hogwarts?
July 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Wow. You actually read my comment. I’m honored. Thank you.
But I still need Greg to see my point: Yes, Fanfic has value. But the essential point of the epilogue, the way it was actually integral to the plot and not just sentimental fluff, is in Harry’s words to Albus Severus.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Regarding Snape’s demise: I think that his death, in that manner, was completely fitting, not just because of “Lily’s eyes”, although that is certainly a good point. The whole scene must be designed to be symbolic of Snape’s life. Literally he is killed by the snake, figuratively his choice/desire to go into Slytherin House - to be a Slytherin - is what took his life down the path he followed. Slytherin is represented as a snake. Snape choosing the snake path led to his tragic life…hence, literally the snake took Snape’s life from him. His repentance in life for that decision was to help Harry - someone he truly despised but who (if Snape had chose ndifferently) could’ve been his son. In the scene this sacrifice is recalled by Snape giving Harry his memories - helping him - and then looking into the eyes that drove him to be repentant in the first place. J.K. is brilliant. Now that she’s written this scene it seems like Snape could not have died any other way.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Shawn: I view Snape’s death differently. Slytherin is the “water” element and Gryffindor is the “fire” element. In the end, Snape’s fire is put out by that snake. He’s the most Gryffindor when he gave his life.
Greg and Penny: I’m an Orthodox Christian. I believe that another poster said that JKR is from the Church of England. I looked up the Anglican creed and they “believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”etc. I think they therefore consider themselves Catholic albeit not Roman.
There is an excellent Roman Catholic podcast out of Europe called “The Secrets of Harry Potter”. That podcast delves into the spiritual and deeply Christian themes in the books. It’s put out by some monks. Do you know it?
“Kings Cross” is an interesting turn of phrase. Purgetory didn’t exist in the imagination until Dante. I don’t believe that Dante is a saint in any religion, so I’m not buying the existence of such a place. I understand that the Romans have made it cannon, but not the Orthodox and I’m guessing not the Anglicans. That chapter reads as a near-death experience. Harry has a choice to die or not, but V’s skinned and weak soul fragment cannot make choices anymore and is therefore beyond hope. “King” can refer to Christ, Love (since Jesus = Love), God, etc. “Cross” is where Christ died, the symbol of hope and triumph for Christians, and a place where two or more roads meet. I believe that Albus came to the crossroads to meet up with Harry. “The dead we love have never really left us. They come to us most clearly when we have real need of them.” This vision of Albus is showing him as one of many Saints in the Potter world. These Saints stood by Harry as he was about to receive the crown of martyrdom. They appear in the form of his patronus and Snape’s patronus. They are peppered all over the books. So many non-Catholic believers and non-believers have a lot of trouble getting their imaginations around the concept of Saints. They don’t understand the distinction between veneration and worship. By loving these flawed and holy characters, the readers are explained this distinction. Harry didn’t worship Snape or Dumbledore, he venerates their memory and will keep that Love alive forever.
There are “mysteries” in faith and the faithful life. How can a man and woman become one and still be two separate people? (the mystery of marriage) How can bread and wine keep the same chemical composition and become the body and blood of someone who’s been dead for centuries? (the mystery of the Eucarist) How can Love only grow when you give more and more of it? (the mystery of Agape love) The department of mysteries was always going to stay mysterious. You can wander around there for years and still not understand diddly. That’s why they’re “mysteries”. Just because they are mysteries doesn’t mean they aren’t true!
I don’t believe that Harry is a Christ figure in the books. I believe that he’s a regular guy who (like all of us) is faced with extraordinary circumstances. His choices make him a hero, just like ours do. I believe that the strength and courage that JKR had in writing her dream is the parallel to Harry’s challenges. If she could claw her way up to her potential, why not us?
That’s why I love these books so much.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Rebecca: I was wondering that also. I kept thinking that the room that Voldy knew about that no one else did was the Chamber of Secrets. Judging by the amount of stuff in the room of requirement, it looked as if just about everyone found it at some time or another. I never really understood how the whole Room of Requirement thing worked anyhow…
July 26th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
vince: I called the peverell : voldermort : harry link from the earlier episode comments (though it was buried way deep).
To me, as soon as the link was made about Marvolo’s ring, it clicked. when they were talking about the invisibility cloak, i knew harry had IT and that it was an heirloom. Ignotus’ grave at Godric’s Hollow right near the Potter’s. The wand was obvious, but was a surprise that it was Dumbledor’s wand. And I loved the twist that Draco was master, and therefore Harry was the master.
Also, there were question about what other memories Snape put in the pensive during occlumency (spelling?) lessons, obviously those were it.
Now it is time to go back and research more symbology.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I don’t have anything to say. Actually, I do, but of course, I can’t explain it in actual words. Uh. The mysteries of the human mind. Suzanne, that is cool. Hmmmmmmm…plausible.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Oh, and how did the Potter’s come across so much money. I am quite amazed no one has said this before, but to me it is quite obvious.
The Potter’s got their money the old fashioned way - they inherited it.
James Potter is the direct descendant of Ignotus Peverell, an obvious old wizarding family of great talent and wealth (plus the other ties to Slytherin by marriage from the second brother). Most of the Malfoy’s fortune is inherited, and given that Jo is from the UK (Scotland) and was exposed to hundreds of years of aristocracy and nobility and fortunes and estates handed down through the generations, it comes through in the stories as well. She writes what she knows. So Harry’s fortune is inherited through the same lines, just not as bountiful as others, but more than most.
That was the other tangent that hit my mind - sorry.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I like how the chapter in book 5 about “Snapes worst memory” made so much more sense now that we know for sure he loved Lily. That day pretty much ruined their relationship and might have been the reason she started to date James later on.
I’m a non-denominational born again Christian and I see a lot of themes that coincide with Christianity but I’m also a huge fan of any King Arthur literature and I see a lot of similarities with Harry and Arthur. I believe Jo Rowling is Anglican, which I’m not as familiar with as I am my sect of faith or Judaism. It seems like Harry is obviously supposed to be a type of Christ-like character, sacrificing himself for the wizard community, but he’s also a very human figure, like King Arthur. Harry is prophesied to bring an end to Voldemort’s power, as Arthur was prophesied to unite the kingdoms of Britain against its many invaders (which could be paralleled to dark arts invading the wizarding community).
I can see Dumbledore’s army as a parallel to the Church put together by Jesus’ disciples after His resurrection. The Church is learned and trained in the ways of the faith and God’s love and will for humanity as Dumbledore’s army was trained in defense of dark arts. I also saw a similarity in the Church and the DA in that the DA was made up of students from all different houses, hobbies, cliques but they came together for a common cause. The Church likewise is made up of people from different economical classes, careers, and lifestyles.
Just some thoughts. I would really like to hear an explanation of how the elder wand supposedly belonged to Draco? The only thing I can think of is that Snape was under the unbreakable vow and that it wasn’t really his task to kill Dumbledore, he was only doing it out of his cunning obligation to the vow (which he so expertly made to ensure his promise to Dumbledore). But still Draco never committed the act so I’m still confused.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
J, the Elder wand theory is quite simple. Draco disarmed Dumbledor, but when Snape killed him, it was under their initial agreement and that Albus was already dying - so Snape never “conquered” Dumbledore, and since Draco was the last who truly did conquer him, Draco became the master of the Elder Wand.
logic is pretty simple in those terms. hope that helps
July 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Tom Riddle’s shortcomings was his lack of attention to details. He was always more of a high level thinker and missed the finer points that cost him his life.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
The epilogue also in one sense “completes the circle”. The saga from Harry’s point of view begins when he uncertainly boards the Hogwart’s Express. It ends with another child named Potter boarding the train with some trepidation.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Hi guys, loved the show, especially when you read one of my comments.
Something came to me while I was listening when you were talking about the epilogue.
When I was reading it I was surprised that JK called him Albus Severus, because most people don’t use the second name when addressing someone. She didn’t mention anyone else’s middle name and she could’ve called James, Albus if she wanted to show both the names.
It wasn’t until you mentioned Slytherin and a light came on in my brain.
Albus Severus Potter intials A.S.P = snake. With such a long family line of Gryffindors why was he so concerned about being sorted into Slytherin.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Just wanted to add that MN have put up a link where JK reveals more about the future of the characters. Greg/Penny didn’t want to put the link in in case you were planning on doing something with it.
Also can someone please tell me why people are so adamant that HP is a children’s book? Just had an argument with a friend because they made a comment about me re reading the book because its a kids book!
July 26th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
The first time I saw a real parallel between HP and Nazi Germany was in the fifth book. Fudge reminded me a lot of Neville Chamberlain, the pre-WWII prime minister of England–both refused to recognize the return of a former enemy, because they did not want to deal with what that meant.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
(hey that’s 2 in a row, I guess I should’ve just made one comment) Religion ideas. I am not religious, but I’ve had some Catholic education.
I think that there are some pretty obvious Harry-Christ parallels–both knowingly sacrafice their lives to save the world, and then return to life stronger, now able to defeat evil. Jesus masters death for the human race by opening up heaven’s gates. Harry masters death by simply accepting it. The important question is why these parallels are there, because they cetainly seem intentional. Did Rowling wish to suggest Christian attitudes towards death and evil to her readers, or was she trying to connect Harry to an image that Western culture equates with goodness, that is, to play off of our subconcious to make her character seem divinely heroic, perhaps a combination of both?
July 26th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Rebecca,
We never see Draco really speak directly to Voldemort. I bet when he got his orders he accepted them, but never told Voldemort the details of how. Not that Voldemort cared. He just wanted to punish the Malfoys and kill Dumbledore. Plus Voldemort was (yea! WAS) so supremely arrogant that he couldn’t fathom anybody else figuring out the Room of Requirement. Funny, because Neville understood it way better than Voldemort.
I reread the book last night, and just caught that he killed everybody with him at Gringotts because they saw the cup. That was gruesome. I think the first time through I was so worried about how much time the trio had left to get to Hogwarts that I skipped right by it.
Anyone else notice this has been a really great week? We read the book, then JKR tells us more secrets. It’s like reading an epilogue to the epilogue.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Jeff: It is a full circle, only this new Potter boarding the train was kissed good-bye by his beautiful, loving, mother!
Andy: I think people think HP is for children because the characters were children (not all). In our culture we don’t see children as fully formed human beings. These books paint a very different picture. These kids are living their lives NOW, not waiting to grow up to do so. I think that’s why.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Hey guys! Check this!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/
July 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Two things:
One - re: the gleam of Triumph in Dumbledore’s eye when he found out that they shared blood (i.e. Lily’s protection) - does this mean that Voldemort could never kill Harry via magic? Would this virtually have guaranteed that Harry would live and Voldemort would die?
Two: - how did the potion in the basin (in the cave) get replenished? In Deathly Hallows it specifically states that Voldemort replaced the potion after making Kreacher drink it when testing the defenses originally. Then it says that Kreacher switched the lockets but says nothing about replacing the potion. The presence of potion after the switcheroo is unexplained.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
vince (again) - i had to re-read your post on the potter/voldemort relation issue (now that i finally listened to the pod-cast). now i understand the angle - so here is my thoughts (and this is influenced from geneaology research over the years - 11th generation here, family emmigrated 1729)…
Tom Riddle and Harry Potter cannot be directly related, only related by marriage. If the Gaunt’s are directly descended from the 2nd Peverell brother, they would have the same surname, it is obvious that a male Gaunt married a Peverell daughter. Now the only possible twist and unknown is the Slytherin link. It is possible that the Gaunt’s were a direct line from Slitheryn through another surname and not the Peverell’s - although it is alluded that it is through the Peverell’s.
Remember, the pure bloods married other pure bloods. the Weasley’s were related to the Malfoy’s, related to the Lestrange’s, related to the Black’s. But Authur was not directly related to Lucious - only through marriage.
With that, Harry and Tom Riddle are related to each other by marriage. And since Harry is not a direct descendant of Slytherin (assumed - since we are led to believe that he only had the gift of Parseltongue through the curse from Tom), it can be assumed that the Peverell’s are not direct descendants of Slytherin either. If there was a connection, I would think Jo would have included that.
Remember, England (and Europe for that matter) was feudal/fiefdom for generations (and hundreds of years - even to this day) and your family lineage meant more than fortune in many cases. So if there was a link to Slytherin from the Peverell’s, it would big a deal and have dirent importance/impact to the story line. Many Greetings in those days included stating your name, and who your father was, and his father, etc. Since there is no mention, you could assume that the Gaunt’s were directly descended from Slytherin through another tree.
Another supporting point of this theory is that the ring (Resurrection Stone) was made a Horcrux and that Tom only made them with objects of great meaning. He had Slytherin’s locket, so the ring cannot be from the Slytherin line - so it was a representative of his grandfather - and in essence (unintended of course since Tom did not have this knowledge) a tie to the Peverell’s and the Deathly Hallows. Interesting how everything ties together so neatly.
So, the Potter family is direct descendant from the 3rd Peverell brother (through a daughter at some point) and the Gaunt’s from the 2nd brother through the same process. Therefor, Harry and Voldemort and related indirectly by marriage, which if my math is correct, technically they are considered 4th cousins twice removed (assumption on the number of generations between the last of the Peverell’s and the Gaunt’s/Potter’s).
What do you think?
July 26th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I’d just like to say a few words regarding the epilogue. I thought the reason for the epilogue was to show how finally Harry has regained what was taken away from him at the beginning of the series: a family. I think that above all else Harry deserved to be given a family of his own. In a way he’s come full circle. There’s Lily and James Potters in the world again (albeit in different forms) and he’s finally granted the happiness we all so desperately wanted for him. Ending the story before he gets this would have been a letdown. I can understand people wanting more answers to other characters, but ultimately it’s Harry who we’ve followed all this time. Harry’s story is what needed denouement and I think the only way to show that was to see him with a family that loves him. I’m not saying the other characters aren’t important or a necessary part of the story in any way, however, letting Harry have that peace and comfort, for however brief a moment, was the one thing I wanted to see at the end. I applaud JKR for giving that to him and to all of us faithful readers. Anyway that’s my two cents.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I am not a Christian though I have studied amny aspects as a historian. It’s pretty critical to understanding western history.
But above and beyond that I think there some basic Ethical themes and problems that the books address.
Love/chjarity vs Power/Manipulation.
Harry and Riddle are both orphans. Harry seeks a family and friends. He want love despite being abused during childhood. Riddle when faced with same dilema manipulate people then progresses to controling people with power.
Again and again Harry when faced with a problem responds by giving Love and helping others.
I won’t quote the entire passage (look it up) but consider what Paul says in the last two paragraphs of Letter to the Corinthians (chapter 13 (KJV)):
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Note that the King James Version uses both the words charity and love to translate the idea of caritas / ἀγάπη: sometimes it uses one, sometimes the other, for the same concept. (last comment is from Wikpeadia)
Redemption vs Temptation
Riddle is tempted by power sucembs and becomes corrupted. he is a monster.
Dumbledore is tempted by power himself and breifly succumbs. He renounces it, seek penence in avoiding power and edicating himself to teaching the young.
Harry never fully succumbs but is tempted by the power of the Deathly hollows.
Selfishness is death vs Sacrifice is resurrection.
Riddle is utterly selfish and thus dies the final death. Harry sacrafices himself and returns from the dead.
Hmmmm…
Thats all I can think of right now.
Steph
July 27th, 2007 at 6:05 am
webby - I agree with your assesment, however, I think the Pervells came before the Slytherins in terms of wizarding history in the context of Power. Definitely not a direct relationship, but it seems to me the roots of that relationship lead back to the brothers as you’ve sussed out quite nicely.
You’re also right about the reference - in “King’s Cross” Dumblydore clarifies the history, but the place it is established is earlier in the book when Harry and Hermione are in Godric’s Hollow . . . that’s where they figure out Harry is related to the 3rd Pervell brother.
Suzanne - I can see an oblique connection in the way you describe it, but perhaps, instead of referencing “Purgatory”, Jo is referencing “the crossroads”. Not sure Dante is a good fit in terms of a basis - seems she drew more from Celtic and Greek mythology as Momentai had described in an earlier post. I actually find the story significantly agnostic - borrowing a bit here and there from many belief systems, but always arriving at the conclusion that “people are people and should all be treated well by each other - mutual respect”. Since it does dabble in so many different belief systems, perhaps that is a part of it’s appeal - it has a morality as all literature must, but delivers it more in the way a fable would. As with anything (especially religion) people will see in it (the story) what they seek which is directly influenced by what they bring from their personal experience - their “baggage” if you will. Of course this works both ways - the writing is informed by Jo’s personal experience and self and as such is what it is . . . wouldn’t have it any other way if you ask me . . .
I really believe that Jo has grown her writing style along with Harry - the structure of the book, the writing style and level, and the deviation from formula was in-tune with Harry reaching adulthood . . .
In regards to the Epilogue - I thought it brought closure to the story in much the same vain as “The Grey Havens” does in LOR, perhaps with less detail, but it brings closure to the story and the principal characters - that it leaves some questions unanswered is better than trying to put a nice shiny wrapper on everything which leaves nothing to the readers imagination where the real life of the writing takes shape and is the basis for all of our discourse . . . Besides, we are simply digesting and sharing in Jo’s creation - it’s not for us to dictate the direction . . . I wouldn’t have it any other way in the end.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:09 am
vince - now that is a take I did not explore about the Peverell’s pre-existing Slytherin, hmmm…
I like the analogy of the Grey Havens flight in LOTR with the Epilogue. If Jo does follow through with her character encyclopedia, that will also be Tolkien-esque as well. Quite honestly, I thought that Jo would borrow more directly with that concept by comparing Harry to Frodo. Frodo could not stay in the Shire after the Journey, due to his branding as a ring bearer and eventually took flight to the Grey Haverns as well. I expected Harry to survive his battle with Tom, but due to his branding (the scar) he would have to exile himself away from the wizarding world to some extent as well.
But this is a happier ending, and give complete closure to Harry. He got his family back.
July 27th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Haha I’ve never read Lord of the Rings and I have NO idea what ya’ll are taliking about.
I thought the epiloge would be like “Eloise Midgen realized her love for Terry Boot and she had to kill Cho to get to him. Then they got married and had 5 lovely children ages 10, 8, 7, 6, 4. All girls.” But, of course, thats not what I got. I think that would be a great deal more interesting than the scene at King’s Cross, but it does add a lot of closure and gives the trio nice, happy families and Draco, with his receeding hairline and Scorpio, his son. I wonder…did he mary Pansy Parkinson? I’m sorry, but I do engoy fluffy bits. I hope Al ends up a Slytherin. Yeah.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
One point on the whole nazi parallel - the fact that Voldemort was all about pure blood and he himself was not a pure blood (tom riddle was a muggle) is a parallel to Hilter, who some scholars believe might have been part Jewish…
July 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I have been listenig to about 5 different podcasts and i have a million differnt things i want to say so i’m going to write this email and copy and paste it to diffent casts. Some one want to hear a christians point of view on the book and i’d love to talk with you about them, my husband is a youth pastor and i love reading harry potter. Please email me back. someone said something about the snake and why V was protecting it and in the end why Snape kept looking at it. I think he as nervous about it and maybe he was trying to think of a way to kill her. V let his guard down with Nigini after harry died and that’s why Nevlille could kill it. I wasn’t protected anymore. In the case of the Elder wand, it was an actual wand not just a power. And the reason it passed to Draco was-even though Snape killed Dumbledore, Malfoy disarmed him first just after Dumbledore petrified Harry in the tower. And then at the mansion, Harry expelled Draco’s wand so he had Draco’s power source therefore the Elder wand was Harry’s. The wand was buried with Dumbledore and V retreived it. So Draco never touched the wand, just like Harry said. I”m soo excited to listen to your podcasts and all the speculations. I hope to hear mine! but i know you have about a million to go through. Can’t wait for more!! Heather
July 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Snape’s past makes a case for him later in life. I understand posters say he chose to be a Slytherin thus chose to forsake Lily dispite his love. This is appropriate considering Slughorn was head of house and produced all the notable Death Eaters especially Riddle, but when Snape was head of house only Draco, Crabbe and Goyle grew to be Death Eaters, all three children of DE. It is ironic that only after Lily’s death, and his subsequent conversion and working with Dumbledore for those years since, did Snape become the kind of wizard Lily could have loved (it also makes me wonder how much did James change after that Lily’s intervention to become the wizard she did love; they didn’t start dating till seventh year, Lupin said). How much was Snape torn between a brave and kind nature versus his animosity towards his father and Muggles in general. In the end he chastized Phineus for calling Hermione a “mudblood” so the name that cost him his relationship with Lily was something he regretted to the very end.
Petunia’s nature is also much influenced by Snape and his animosity towards Muggles. How much of her is jealousy for Lily’s skill versus the attention Lily garnered from their parents, “mother said…” “they were so proud when she got her letter”, the look of wonder at Platform 9 3/4. I think when Snape caused the branch to fall upon her he convinced Petunia to take such a hardline against magic, she wasn’t calling them freaks when she wrote Dumbledore but saying their freaks because she wasn’t doesn’t seem enough alone. Seeing them as dagerous because Snape hurt her does.
When Ron returned to Harry, Harry confessed he saw Hermione as a sister. Not only did i find that agreeable, i think it reinforces paralles between Hermione and Lily. They are both Muggle-borns, both highly intelligent and talented, both with very strong moral compasses sufficient to only be placed in Gryffindor.
I wasn’t dismayed by Snape’s death because i don’t think he deserved an uncerimonious death. It showed Voldemort’s disregard of life dispite his personal fear of death. Also it gave Snape a cold ironic death that matched his personality.
Greg and Penny: please do an episode on the Locket of Dispair. How is it it suppressed Harry’s magic, affected Ron almost as bad as the diary affected Ginny, and did what exactly to Hermione? She didn’t have any good ideas durring that time but is that because of the locket? if so what else did it do to her? Did the locket ‘leaver her alone’ because she is a Muggle-born? This episode will give you time to organize a larger discustion of Religous allegory in Harry Potter which will attract a lot of audience input.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I have become a very frequent listener to your podcast. I can always understand you guys and you never talk about things that people don’t want to listen too. I congratulate you guys.
The only thing that I don’t understand is how you guys get to Nazi’s from the Harry Potter book. I mean JK Rowling wasn’t trying to refer to them and the symbol was just part of the story. There is a big chance though that JK Rowling just made up the symbols or look up a symbol that would be worthy enough to show. But I dont think it has anything to do with the Harry Potter book.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I didn’t get how the Deathly Hallows were suppose to be three very powerful items… the stone, wand, and cloak. But, then when Harry and Dumboldore were talking Dumboldore asked Harry… “Where do you think we are?” Harry said the Deathly Hallows. I thought the Deathly Hallows were the three items, not a place.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I dont think she was particularly refering to Nazi’s but as Greg and Penny said she was making a point to stand against racism and tyranny in general — the Nazi’s are the most well known of that. She could have referenced any situation where people where killed or demoralized for their gender, race, creed, sexual orientation — any of that. JKR is a huge believer in personal freedom and has no tolerance for hatred — check out the interview in Entertainment Weekly..
Great Podcast guys! I am trying to put my ideas together about the religious angle but at the moment I keep thinking of The Matrix and thats not where my 12 years of Catholic education should be taking me .. :o)
July 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
oh and I apologize for any spelling errors I am incredibly tired (And though not an excuse I accept from my students it is what it is.)
July 27th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Maggie,
The Hallows symbol, the prison and everything surrounding Grindewald was a pretty obvious metaphor to the Nazis, centering around the change and politics that happened in the Ministry in the story. Read some of the earlier posts for more concrete examples. WWII is a huge part of British Culture, but in true JK form, she has included timeless historical themes and thus it is applicable to some of the current policy and politics in the world today, adding yet another layer of depth and relevancy.
Oh and Harry said they were in “Kings Cross”, not the Hallows by the way. If you watch the A&E documentary, you’ll see that Kings Cross Station has a special place in JK’s heart.
Take another read through the book - you’ll find that the Hallows (they’re only Deathly in the context of the fable in the book) we’re indeed very powerful, a set of items to conquer death and endow immortality. Dumblydore compares himself with Voldemort - both having tried to beat death, which in the end, didn’t work for either . . .
July 27th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
webby,
About the history - it just seems that the Pervells are placed far back in wizarding history to the point of them being relegated to myth, whereas the Slytherin family is a contemporary, verifiable family . . . That said, your geneology seems well reckoned . . .
July 28th, 2007 at 2:27 am
I would love to see Richard E. Grant in the last two Potter movies, he’d be great.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Just wanted to add my two cents worth about the whole Nazi thing. I don’t think Jo was making a direct correlation between the two but was using small similarities to draw a comparison. If you think about it before 911 the evilest person in the world was probably Hitler (she started writing the books prior to 911). By Jo using a name like Grindelwald and using the date 1945 we automatically think of WW2, German and Hitler. By doing this we can imagine huge atrocities and pure evil, which helps her, build her characters of Grindelwald and Voldemort and makes us imagine just how evil these characters and what they are doing really are.
Voldemort was a dictator, he wanted the world to be his world, pure blood. You can’t help but make the correlation. Whether Jo did this consciously or sub consciously only she knows.
Anyway not sure whether this makes sense, it made sense in my head but was hard to put in words.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Did anybody else realize that the book takes place in 1997? In the chapter Godric’s Hollow, it shows the tombstone of Lilly and James Potter. It says that they died on October 31 1981, and we know that Harry was one year old when they died, meaning that he was born in 1980 and if in the book he is 17, then the book must take place in 1997.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
What does tonks look like?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
John- i think alot of people knew because she started writing and placed the scene in 1990, i think 1990 is right. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
but yeh.
=]
and Ginny- Tonks in the book is suppose to have bubble gum pink hair, and in the movie she ha purple hair.
and i thought she would be younger but i dont know.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Please, save Harry Potter.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Hello guys!!
It´s me again, Horacio from Mexico! I can not thank you enough for all the hard work you have put on your podcasts, specially the latest two. I have just finished my reading of DH and I can say that you guys are amazing!! you got so much stuff right!!
I just finished because I went to Grand Rapids, MI to get the book (bought a couple of copies to give away to friends). And I really didn´t get a good chance to do some hard reading until I came back home, but I read it ravenously and finished it in like 17 hrs. straight fom Friday afternoon until today (Saturday).
It is a wonderful book indeed!!! A worthy ending to an incredible saga. I really wanted to thank you guys for the great context work you´ve done on these books. I am very sad that it all has come to and end and that there will be no more HP books… I am already beginning to feel some withdrawal symptoms, but I guess that´s life!
Keep on the great work you´ve done so far and I will keep on prognosticatng and listening to you guys for as long as you keep at it!!!
PS.- I was really saddened to see Dobby die, but what really disturbed me was Fred´s and Collin´s deaths… so very poignant and a very touching reminder that war, no matter what form it takes or how righteous it might be, is always a nasty and horrible business.
PS2.- Frank Herbert in one of his Dune novels makes a point that J.K. stresses toward the end of DH: That power is best placed upon those who do not seek it. And that point makes me think so much about the flaws democracy has, specially in our day and age, when success is meassured in terms of how much money a candidate raises, which usually correlates to how much that candidate desires to gain the power that public office can bring.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Richard - actually, the year was established in Chamber of Secrets - Go re-read the section on the Death Day party - Nearly Headless Nick references that it’s the 500th anniversary of some even that occurred in 1492. Therefore, the death day party had to have taken place in 1992.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Actually, I just went and looked and Nearly Headless Nick died October 31, 1492.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Rowling’s Kings Cross: JKR was really born again when she was in the real station and imagined Harry Potter for the first time. It was the beginning of her new life. That was 17 years ago for her. All the symbols are so inspiring.
Vince: I do think that many faiths are referenced in the books. That does not make them agnostic. Christianity is not a blatant devaluing and disregard of all other faiths. Only big-haired fanatics are like that.
Everyone: I’m re-reading Book 6. There’s a bloody ax in the room of requirement. Perhaps it’s Nearly Headless Nick’s execution weapon.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Leslie.
my name is Rachael. Not Richard.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
re: Tonks- In the book, when she first meets Harry, her hair is in fact purple, but she decides it makes her look “peakish” and changes it to pink. I can’t remember if this change happens in the movie or not (I need to watch it again) but for some reason I think it did, though it wasn’t quite as bright as I had imagine. Also, I think her hair was too long. The only other physical description we get of her in the book (as far as I can remember) is that she has a pale, heart-shaped face.
She looked the right age to me. I’ve always imagined her as being around 10 years older than Harry and 10 years younger than Remus.
I wish I could say some really profound things about Deathly Hallows right now, but unfortunately my tongue (or should that be my fingers, seeing as I’m typing?) is tied.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:16 am
JK’s words from Dateline interview.
Young voice: Voldemort’s killing of Muggle-borns, it sounds a lot like ethnic cleansing. How much of the series is a political metaphor?
J.K. Rowling: Well, it is a political metaphor. But … I didn’t sit down and think, “I want to recreate Nazi Germany,” in the– in the wizarding world. Because– although there are– quite consciously overtones of Nazi Germany, there are also associations with other political situations. So I can’t really single one out.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:17 am
More
Young voice: Harry’s also referred to as the chosen one. So are there religious–
J.K. Rowling: Well, there– there clearly is a religious– undertone. And– it’s always been difficult to talk about that because until we reached Book Seven, views of what happens after death and so on, it would give away a lot of what was coming. So … yes, my belief and my struggling with religious belief and so on I think is quite apparent in this book.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Andy - Thank you sir for helping to put that stuff to bed. I find these aspects about the book fascinating, but I think, like Jo, it’s an undertone and not meant to engulf the writing. I think I was starting to step on toes there . . . my last post got rejected.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Vince- I don’t know why your post was rejected. We don’t moderate comments anymore. Also, I looked in our spam folder and there weren’t any from you there. Hmmm, maybe wordpress is holding some of our comments hostage!!
July 30th, 2007 at 9:02 am
General comments after some deliberation on a few issues/points:
As far as political undertones in the book, it is very obvious to make tie-ins to the Nazi regime with the entire Grindewald story line with Dumbledor. But we cannot forgot this is set in Harry’s time, and he began Hogwarts in 1991, and the seventh books takes place in 1997 (and therefore the Epilogue is dated at 2016).
This story is set at the same time period of the aftermath of the first Gulf war (Hussein invading Kuwait and the international response to that), all the turmoil with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the aftermath of the “silent revolution” change in Eastern Europe that began in 1989).
But JK is also influenced by current events, the etnic profiling and immigrations issues throughout Europe and the struggles against fundamentalism on all fronts. So I look at this more of a general commentary on the direction of society in Europe more than a focus on an isolated Regime (the Nazi’s).
As far as religion, JK is Anglican (not Catholic - which I believe someone else clarified). And what I find interesting is how that comes through so strongly - and not by the “Harry is a Christ figure” question (which I personally think is a bogus issue). It is evident in the whole tolerance struggle of Muggles and Muggle-born in the wizarding world. Today, the Anglican/Episcopal church is struggling with its own sense of tolerance and openness to welcome and accept all people. There are ultra-conservative factions fighting that stance and taking literal views of scripture and liturgy.
So with that, I see a confluence of political and religious struggles that revolve around 3 key historical periods - the 1930’s, with Hitlers rise to power and the ethnic cleansing that begun (contemporary to Ariana’s beating and initial meeting of Dumbledor and Grindwald); WWII and the defeat of Hitler (tied nicely with the defeat of Grindewald), and finally present day of Harry Potter (invasion of Kuwait, the resulting Gulf War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union).
Enough with that topic, now to the next: The King’s Cross chapter. I have read and heard a lot of discussion about that scene and in particular the baby in the basket issue, and who/what that represented. So here are my thoughts/interpretation.
The baby represents the unknown soul fragment of Voldemort created in Harry. Remember, Harry tells Tom to repent because he sees what WILL happen to him if he does not. Harry was unable to do anything about the baby, it’s fate was already decided, but Voldemort still had a choice. When Harry sacrificed himself, the AK curse again rebounded and hit Voldemort and knocking him down (it never had full effect because Harry was the unknown master of the Elder Wand). However, the curse did destroyed the horcrux in Harry and thereby destroying that piece of soul (crying in the basket in King’s Cross).
There are theories that it was Voldemort in the basket, I do not believe so since Harry asked Dumbledor if this was real or in his head. Dumbledor replied both, so with that, the crying baby was the destroyed soul from the horcrux.
That is my story anyway - albeit long one for today.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Penny - I got an “Access Denied” message . . . I was just giving you a hard time, it was a glitch in the blog engine I’m pretty sure . . .
Webby - totally agree on the baby being Moldy Voldy’s bit of soul. I think both Harry and Voldemort were in limbo at that point - notice Voldy came to about the same time as Harry did. He wasn’t aware of what happened there, so that would mean that the soul bit was definitely the one living inside Harry - who knows what Voldy went through during that time, but he probably wasn’t complete enough to take back any memories as I can’t believe he’s arrogant to the point of being stupid (unlike some current leaders we know) . . .
July 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I realize Grindelwald had the elder wand and was the owner. Dumbledore defeated grindelwald and took the elder wand for himself. How did dumbledore defeat the undefeatable wand.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Sweet Lou, I have a feeling that Dumbledore was able to defeat the Elder Wand because Grindewald was never the true master of it. Remember, Grindewald stole the wand from the wandmaker (cannot remember his name and I don’t have the book in front of me - but he made Krum’s wand), he never conquered him. But I am not so sure that the wandmaker was it’s Master either. Remember, the lore of the wand would disappear for long periods of time in history only to revive again here and there.
The wand disappeared from history while in Dumbledor’s possession because he never advertised he had it. Due to the fact the Dumbledor was more skilled then Grindwald, and “Grindy” was not the true master of the wand, it is logical for Dumbledor to “win” the wand and become it’s new master.
Remember, Olivander says the wand chooses it wizard, not the other way around. Obviously the Elder Wand recognized Dumbledor as a true master, by his defeat of Grindewald and also by Dumbledor’s own intentions.
My second ramble of the day. So I am curious as to what are Penny’s/Greg’s thoughts on this?
July 30th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I defer to Webby- I think you answered that well and I agree with your thoughts. Keep rambling!!
Although the wandmaker was Gregorovich which was obviously JK Rowling’s Subtle nod to Greg (either that or the Gerg in OoTP).
July 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Webby, if Grindelwald wasn’t the true master, then Dumbledore would not have been the true master after defeating him. It doesn’t work to defeat the wand master if you do not defeat the actual Elder wand master.
Also, a defeat doesn’t necessarily mean a duel. Harry beat Draco by grabbing his wand out of his hand, and it wasn’t even the Elder wand. And Draco defeated Dumbledore with Expelliarmus simply because Dumbledore didn’t send any spell toward Draco. The unbeatable wand has passed through people’s hands through history because the wizards are beatable, even if the wand isn’t. The first Peverell brother lost the wand because he was asleep when he was defeated.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Elizabeth, good logic. Never said my thought process was perfect. And defeating another wizard is not always meant by death/killing. The interesting twist is that there is an allusion that wands are sentient to a degree. They can never act against their true master, and the wand chooses the wizard.
So, would there be a case that the elder wand would choose a new master without it’s current holder being defeated? I would theorize that if the elder wand passed to another wizard without that wizard being it’s true master, and the previous true master of the elder wand passed away, then the next wizard to defeat the current “holder” of the wand would become its next master.
To me, thievery is not a noble way to attain a wand, let alone the Elder Wand. I would think a wand of that stature would be wise enough to such antics. Remember, there were gaps in history where the wand disappeared. Does that mean it was lost? Or that it merely was in the possession of another who was not its true master and therefore never exhibited its true powers?
Wand theory is seemingly complex, and we can only prognosticate about it. If only I were a Wizard and could test these theories out.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Wow! So much to process. I absolutely loved the book.
1. I’m not upset that Ron used Parseltongue at all. Wasn’t it just one word like, “Open,” which he heard Harry say earlier in the book when Harry opened the locket using Parseltongue? It’s not as if he spouted off a whole paragraph, so I’m okay with him saying one word in Parseltongue.
2. As a Christian, I see some overtones but none that are overtly Christian — more general religious universal themes, in my opinion. Also, in the Apostle’s Creed said by Methodists, which I am, as well as other denominations , we say “I believe in the holy catholic church.” It’s a lower case “c,” indicating universal and not the Catholic Church, itself.
3. I’ve always wondered if the Death Eaters, especially those who are pure bloods, actually know or realize that Voldemort is NOT a pureblood. Or is it just Dumbledore and Harry that know Voldemort’s real background, or is the fact that he’s the Heir of Slytherin give him enough credit, even though he’s half-blood?
4. I’m still get the shudders when I went to see OotP in the theater during the opening weekend, and there were people in my crowded theater who cheered when Harry and Cho kissed. It’s just a moment and kiss! There should be no cheering. And it’s not Ginny. There were some subtle foreshadowings of Harry and Ginny in the movie, in my opinion, but I may have been seeing things that I wanted to see.
5. I love the part in the book when Ginny insists that Luna take Harry to the Ravenclaw common room and not Cho. Too funny! You go Ginny!
6. The whole visit to Godric’s Hollow is way creepy even before they end up at Bathilda’s house, who turns out to be Nagini! I think that was the part of the book when I was most scared during that whole chapter, because I could tell something was just not right, but I wasn’t sure what.
7. King’s Cross Station is a special place in England for me, too, though for different reasons than J.K. Rowling’s.
That’s all I have, for now.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
First up, i would like to say you guys are doing a great job in this podcast. Now that the last book came out there’s really noting to look forward to that’s realated to Harry Potter except the next Harry Potter Prognostications podcast.
In a podcast you guys mentioned the similarity between Grindelvald’s reign of terror to the Nazi regime. There are also a lot of similarities between Lord Voldemort and Adolf Hitler. One of them being that they both wanted to clean the world of supposively inferior beings. They both had rough childhoods and just like Lord Voldemort was not a pureblood wizard Hitler was not a pure Aryan. They also both tried to hide their lineage by violent means.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Abraham, I would say Voldemort is more contemporary to Sadam Hussein. He invaded Kuwait, he used chemical weapons to kill ethnic minorities in Iraq, he ruthlessly executed his political rivals. Was he as evil as Adolf? No, by any means, but his atrocities were still horrible. One other contemporary cleansing attempt I forgot to mention was Milosovic - he too ordered the slaughter of ethnic minorities during his campaign. But how can we mention Hitler without a nod to Stalin, who is responsible for the deaths of over 20 million russions - contemporary to Hitler. And then was also General Mao.
The point here being, yes, Hitler and the Nazi regime are obvious parallels, but I believe JK also had more contemporary issues of ethnic cleansing in mind when dealing with Voldemort. They all had similar roots and their were no less evil than Hitler - he just most the press. Oh, and you cannot neglect the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Africa of recent times.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Becky, I’ve been wondering about that possible plot hole too. In the movie of Goblet, in the presence of some of his Death Eaters, he says he’s at the tomb of his father, and it’s obvious he means the Riddles. You’d think Lucius at least would recognize that’s not a pureblood family.
Here’s a question: if Harry is the Heir of Gryffindor (through the Potter family?), and Voldemort is the Heir of Slytherin (through the Gaunt family?), isn’t it interesting that both of these lines also intertwined with the Peverell family? I’d really like to see these family trees!
July 30th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Jeff, nothing we’ve read says that Harry’s the heir of Gryffindor, though it would have been just as interesting if he were. However, it is interesting that Harry and Voldemort are related by the Peverell line. I also find it interesting that their choices in the books are paralleled by their particular hallows. Harry inherited the cloak, the most humble of the items, while Riddle ostensibly “inherited” the resurrection stone, which I think shows his fear of death.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Vince, No offence but Sir is actually Maam, but realise that the spelling is probably more recognisable as the masculine version rather than Andie.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Jeff, I also pondered the possibility that Harry was related to Gryffindor - based soley on Chamber of Secrets when he pulled the sword out of the hat. Dumbledor’s response to that question by Harry was that only a true Gryffendor could have pulled that out of the hat. But then in Hallows, Neville also the same thing.
I do not believe that Neville is directly related to Gryffindor. Now, due to the nature of purebloods, Harry’s, Neville’s, Weasley’s, Voldemorts, Malfoys, Blacks, etc. families could all be intertwined somewhere down/up the line, but that would be absolute chaos!
July 30th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
random thought to ponder!
In many ways Voldermort, Snape and Harry have very similar childhoods. Sad and alone. along with this compairison a less noticable one in DH might be between these 3 and the 3 brothers in the tale of the 3 brothers. Voldermort is the oldest brother searching for the wand because he wants ultimate power . Snape is the middle brother who asks for the reserection stone because he misses and constantly thinks of lilly. Harry who has a difficult time trusting people, is the youngest.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Hey guys, great podcast. I can’t wait for the next podcast on harry potter and religion. It should be very interesting stuff. keep up the good work!
July 30th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Wow - great comments everyone!
I thought it’d get confusing with two Elizabeths posting, so I tried to differentiate. Hope it works!
I loved listening to your podcast, as it came as an excellent relief from a very, very stressful month. I also liked the challenge to those christians out there to compare HP to christianity. I am a Mormon (and yes, that does mean that I am a Christian), and I have also lived for extended periods of time in Germany and Austria. Suffice it to say, my mind is reeling with all the parallels I’ve been noticing!!
First, let’s start with the obvious, Voldy/Hitler. When Hitler first came to power, he was met with surprisingly little resistence, because he offered hope to a downtrodden and very proud people. It wasn’t until it was too late (at this point, Germany was completely under his control and Austria was swiftly heading there) that people realized that his social programs were covering up hideous and morbid motives. There are still countless people in Austria who are still grateful to that regime for the innovative idea of personal bathrooms. Prior to that, each floor (possibly three apartments per floor) woudl share a bathroom. Icky! Of course, the motive behind that was that “purebloods” ought not mingle with “mudbloods”.
As obvious by the clippings in RAB’s room, Voldy started with what were seen as innovative ideas by some, as did Grindelwald, and it wasn’t until later that hte full extent of those ideas were uncovered. More could be said on this subject… perhaps later. The hufflepuff in me has to draw the obvious work camp/house elf connection … have at it!
I ws seriously struck by the Christian parallels, however … especially the forest scene. When Harry entered the forest, he did it with no physical help. He knew his death lay in the forest and that it was necessary. He also was only comforted by the spirits of those departed. While I believe it important to clarify that I don’t htink Harry is a perfect being, I believe the allusion to his role as a Christlike character is there, especially given Christ’s fondness for parables at one point during His ministry.
When Christ entered the Garden of Gethsemane before his arrest and crucifixion, he entered alone. His friends were outside, fighting their own battle (although Death Eaters are much more harrowing than sleep), and his only comfort were the angels that appeared to him during his trial in the Garden. It was the greatest trial of Christ’s faith (Nevertheless, thy will be done) to complete the task the Father had set forth for him to complete, just as Harry had to have faith in the task Dumbledore set forth — his willing death.
When Christ exited the Garden victorious, he was betrayed and arrested. One passage in the Gospels more deeply illustrates this as the apostle (memory fails me at the moment) explains that when Christ identified himself, soldiers cowered in fear … while all that Christ said was “I am He”. Fear does not strike Harry’s advesaries right away, but what else would have caused Voldemort to panic?
There are more obvious allusions to Christianity througout the last few chapters … Christ died that all may live for eternity, and Harry’s “death” prevented the deaths of those around him. Harry overcame death by not seeking glory for himself, Christ overcame Satan by seeking to fulfil the will of the Father. Christ never raised his hand in anger against an adversary, and Harry ultimately defeated Voldemort through love and defense — not by force. One may argue that Harry didn’t aim to kill Voldy, he aimed to provide him with that one glimmer of redemption.
Another, stunningly powerful allusion to Christianity in the Harry Potter books is Harry’s role as the Master of Death. We believe that Christ was the one with the power to break the bands of death and hell. He had the poewr to overcome death, not only for others (Lazarus) but also for himself (Easter). Surprisingly to some, we believe that Passover is a foreshadow of Easter. What was Harry’s final title? Master fo Death — as possessing the three deathly hallows, he had the power ot choose to return from death, to stopper it.
Wow, okay I could go on and on, and my BIL wants the computer. Hope I didn’t innundate any of you, and I hope that’s not too controversial. Love the podcast!!
July 30th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Wow. I am starting to think that Greg and I would be in a bit over our heads to discuss the Christianity in Harry Potter in the next podcast. Seriously everyone, your submissions both in these comments and in e-mail form are fantastic. Please don’t be dissapointed if we don’t end up doing that discussion this week. We are heading to prophecy at the end of the week and we have a bunch to do before then and I am not sure we could give the topic the adequate amount of preparation it needs for this week. We’ll see…:)
July 30th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I also feel really sorry for Petunia in a way now. I know her behavior, as well as all of the Dursleys, until Dudley’s in book 7 was horrid, but now that I have a better understanding, I can see where she is coming from.
She and Lilly seemed close and then Snape shows up, and then it turns out that Lilly and Snape have something in common that Petunia will never have, and obviously she’s jealous and feels left out. I can understand completely why she wrote the letter to Dumbledore asking if she could also go to Hogwarts.
And then to make fun of Petunia for having written the letter, thus estranging Lilly and Petunia from one another — you can understand why Petunia wants nothing to do with the wizarding world at all. Is that Harry’s fault no, but he was the only one present that she could take out her frustrations on, which were then also passed on to Vernon and then Dudley. Luckily, JKR had Dudley come around, but obviously, Petunia is too far set in her ways. It’s really sad, in a way.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:01 am
Being an evangelical Christian, who heard so much negative talk about the Harry Potter books, it took me a little longer to catch on. When my son turned 10 and his desire to read the books became stronger (the child loves to read!!!!) I chose to read them first…needless to say I ended up hooked!!! My thoughts on the Christianity angle are such:
1. I think we are trying too hard to make comparisons with Christ and Harry but that being said…
2. Rowling actually quotes Scripture in the Deathly Hallows: Matthew 6:21: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” so she has, I suppose, opened up the door for discussion
Harry is, in my opinion, an excellent example for Christian parents to use to show their children the love of Jesus the Christ and the love He commanded us to show. Harry gave the ultimate sacrifice, his own life, for those he loves-just as Jesus did. On the other hand Harry is truly just a young man who falters and fails like any other human so it is also important for parents to show their children that he is by no means the embodiment of Christ.
I have personally read the books alongside my son to be able to discuss how the books parallel the Bible and how they do not. The Bible speaks very clearly against magic and divination so we had a conversation about that. The thing is…and I know my thoughts are quite remedial compared to all of yours….it is a series of books and it is up to us, as parents, to make sure that our kids understand that this is fiction. Take the good things and the bad things and learn from them-if there is some confusion in your child help them to understand it. They have brought great joy into our lives and that is never a bad thing.
I have openly debated with people from my own church about their close minded views on the Harry Potter series. They are ok with the LoTR and Narnia series but that is because those men were “Christians” yet JKR is some hell bound witch who sold her soul to the devil to get her books written (funny but no one has proof on that one!). I have asked them if they read the books and guess what…they haven’t. I am quick to break them all out (the books that is) and show them the similarities and the themes that can, if we choose to let them, draw us closer to God. That can be said of just about anything.
It all boils down to what you believe…if you believe that Jesus is the Christ then you can take these books and draw the parallels. If you do not believe then it really means nothing. Does it really matter in the scheme of life if Christian parallels can be drawn? Does it really change the depth or quality of the books? Does it change your views on religion? The questions should be: Did you learn something? Did they bring joy to you? Did you find a character that you connected with? Who was that character and why did you connect? Did Harry, Ron, and Hermione make you want to be a better person? Did they inspire in you a love for reading?
Those are the things that matter to me. Did my son gain something positive out of the series, did he learn that loving others is vital, did his love for reading grow, did he learn that no matter how hard he tries to be a good person he is going to mess up and it’s okay? I will be the one to help form his views on Jesus and leave JKR to inspire his imagination through the written word and perhaps he will choose to write his own series of books.
I’m done! Sorry if my thoughts are not as deep as some of yours…you all write the greatest posts…I just try to live my life simply and with as much love and compassion as possible! Blessings to all of you!
July 31st, 2007 at 9:43 am
I am so behind on things.. I saw little kids acting out the newest book yesterday …. I should of taken pictures. Aaron was not there to play Hagrid. Be home Thurs
Dee
July 31st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Vicki - You are going to change my mindset about Evangelical Christians. I am gratified that there are some of you who have a sense of reason and I applaud the fact you have actually read the book before applying any judgment. I would say that even among non-religious such as myself, I still do deduce and learn from the Christian and other parallels in the book - it’s not that it means nothing, it just means something different. In anycase, it was a nice surprise to hear such a reasoned perspective which probably means I need to open up a bit as well . . . I find your thoughts as “deep as the pacific” - especially the closing statement …
“mizz” Andy - I stand corrected. No offense intended.
Carla - excellent parallel you pointed out there! Jo does like to alliterate her themes doesn’t she!
About the Elder wand - Dumblydore says himself he won the wand to save others from it so he was only allowed to “tame” the wand and could never boast or gain fame from it. Seems to me that Dumbly conquered Grindewald through his purity of intention and thus the wand succumbed to him under those conditions.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Vicki- I’ve grown up in a Christian household my whole life and my parents wouldn’t let me read Harry Potter when they first came out because of all the associations with witch craft and things of that nature. But when I asked them to read it first they said that they didnt have time to read them. I would like to say I really appreciate parents like you that will actually investigate things before they hand them to their children. I had to wait until I was in high school to start reading about Harry. I was really happy to see the good values they reveal and how sacrificial love is such a huge theme in the books. It’s a much bigger than any of the supposed controversy that Evengelicals believe there is. I wish more people in the church would give these book a try and see that they aren’t as bad as they make them out to be. It’s good to hear that I’m not alone in trying to persuade others to give these amazing book a try!
July 31st, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Great podcast. I agree that Teddy Rupskin would make a great villain in a horror movie.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:55 am
They kind of did the horror-show-child’s-doll-turned-killer with Chucky already though . . . I’d like to see “My Pretty Pony” gone over to the darkside . . . I was going to make a comment about Daniel Radcliff and how he’d be perfect in a movie version of “My Evil Pony” but I’ll refrain . . .
Teddy Rukspin was such a girlie toy!
August 1st, 2007 at 1:05 am
Totally off topic now but my son has the new version of Teddy Ruxpin, its called TJ Beary tales, quite scary when it turns its head while talking, it even comes with a torch which it can turn on and off my itself.
Vince - to avoid any misconceptions I’ve adopted your new name
August 1st, 2007 at 1:31 am
YAY!!
i can comment agen
i managed to finish the book in 2days afta getting bck on holiday
loved the book
in reply to u wanting a christian view on the book
I only saw the “death & resurrection” of harry as being the only connection to jesus christ/bible/christian views, everything else seems to be linked with aloads of ancient mythology and the Nazis.
Jesus sacrificed himself to save the world from sin so that every1 may all join god in heaven reguardless of what people had done, race etc.
Harry also sacrificed himself to save the wizarding through love, and so every1 gained harry’s protection of love so that they couldnt be harmed by voldemort etc
ps Rowena Ravenclaw is Witch of the Month of jk website
August 1st, 2007 at 7:34 am
I can’t see much of a connection between Christianity and the story at all. Short of them celebrating Christmas it would actually seem to me that any connection to religion was intentionally avoided. A story such as The Lion , The Witch and the Warddrobe had obvious symbolism that hits you over the head once you look for it but even the chapter at King’s Cross Station seemed more like a scene from Heaven Can Wait, or some other made for TV series. I think it may be more prudent to focus on druids or pagans. It would seem to me that religous themes my be purposely obscure as not to glorify or degrade any particular belief. Belief in love, friends, good over bad with maybe a touch of forgiveness and sympathy are by no means the exclusive copyright of any religion.
I’m tired and my unorganized thoughts are showing through so I will regress to the plain talk to show my point. There is a saying among soldiers that even though we come from many different backgrounds and religions that there are no atheist in a foxhole under fire. It struck me as a deliberate exclusion to see no prayres for the dead or of any type during such a war as was Deathly Hallows. No mention of God when dealing with the afterlife or at the Wedding. No ceremonies of any sort that I remember even hinting of faith in a higher being. Nope think I could compare it closer to an Army Chaplain. When you need one they may be a Jewish Rabbi speaking to Roman Catholics or what ever. Point is you don’t tend to be picky when the bullets fly. Eventually in the calm a particular belief will be honored. IE last rights for the dead/dying or specialized services for different beliefs. A luxery to be sure during times of death and battle but there is never an absence of God if that makes any sense. Maybe that is the connection.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:21 am
Steph: The bible quote you mentioned is very appropriate.
Vince: I believe that the “Kings Cross” bit is a crossroads too.
I also believe that if Radcliffe hadn’t done Equus, Harry wouldn’t
have been nude at the beginning of this scene
Webby: Living in Massachusetts, where homosexuals can marry, I look at
The various marriages through those lenses. There was so much talk that “if these people marry, society will fall”. Yet our state
has the lowest divorce rate! The Fleur/Bill and Tonks/Lupin
unions, though not homosexual bespeak interracial and other
controversial unions.
Toilet Talk: I’m rereading the book and am struck by the blatant use of toilets in the MOM. People have to literally flush themselves into work. Talk about a sh**tty job! JK is making quite a statement about those who work for regimes which are oppressive. You must literally become excrement to show up to work. Mr. Weasley and Kingsly are flushing themselves daily to keep their families safe. I’m reminded of the scene from Schindler’s List when a little boy hides in the bowels of an outhouse to escape death.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:22 am
Well, Tolkien and Elliot were contemporaries and there were always christian allegory examples in both of their works, just that Elliot was much more obvious where Tolkien was much more subtle about. Rowling is similar to Tolkien in that respect, and also by the fact the arch hero survives and prospers (similar to Frodo) rather than killing him off (as compared to Sherlock Holmes).
There are definitely undertones of religion in general, but Rowling was smart about it and left it very ambiguous and up to the reader to interpret for themselves - rather than involving herself directly in the debate. After reading/viewing some of her post-book interviews, it seems obvious that she is not a very religious person in practice and that the aspect of religion is very personal to her and presents a daily struggle with her. A very honest revelation and glad it is not one of those “jamb it down your throats because it should be good for you” scenarios.
Disclaimer: Episcopal, practicing, but not overtly “religious.” We may get to Eucharist 2 weeks out of 3, but take the summers off.
Now, I just can’t wait till the character encyclopedia comes out - whenever that may be. I did read her recent chat transcripts and they (with her recent interviews) really shed some light and details and answers a lot of our questions posted here. Very enlightening - I hope she updates her website with a lot of these post book answers soon - with more detail and explanation.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I loved the podcast. Greg’s point of expelliarmus/AK = horcrux quest/hallows quest was very cool.
I thought of something while listening: if Tom’s spells weren’t working any longer than why did his AK spell kill him?
Webby: I disagree that Tom and Harry are only related by marriage. Related by marriage means there is not blood link. If the second Peverell was Harry’s ancestor and another Peverell was Tom’s ancestor, then they are related by blood whether or not Tom’s Peverell ancestor was male or female. Just because she would have changed her name to Gaunt, doesn’t make her any less blood related. Furthermore, the introduction of the Gaunt name could have come later down the line and it could have been one of the three brothers who founded that line which led to Tom.
I too think the Nazi parallel is overt and I’m positive it was intentional. Even from Krum’s anger over the symbol I thought as much.
Shawn: I really like that idea about the snake representing Snape’s choice and his ultimate demise. very nice.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Penny and Greg,
I have been too busy with real life to really read or post around here, but I wanted to say good luck at Prophecy. Are you going to be recording your workshop and putting it up as a podcast or can’t you do that? I’d very much like to hear more about how to make a podcast, it sounds like it would be fun. I hope you will tell us all about Prophecy when you get back.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
You’re just gonna have to guess which Elizabeth I am.
I’m used to being the only one, but it’s funny having 2.
Kimba,
I’m not positive which part of Tom’s spells not working that you are talking about, so I’m just going to address all of them.
Tom’s spells didn’t work on other people after Harry sacrificed himself for them because they were protected by the old magic inherent in the sacrifice.
The Elder Wand did work for him, just not extraordinarily. It did not give him the extra “non-defeatable” power because he wasn’t the wand’s master. Ollivander explained that wands will work for sufficiently skilled wizards, just not as well as when the wand chooses the wizard.
The AK curse killed Riddle because it rebounded off of Harry’s Expelliarmus curse, plus as Harry was the Elder Wand’s master, it would not kill Harry.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
One other thing I wanted to post. Did you notice how Harry stopped calling Lupin “Professor Lupin” in DH? He began calling him Remus. I wondered when that would happen, as Sirius had always been “Sirius”, when he wasn’t Snuffles. It would have been much weirder had he called Professor McGonagall “Minerva”.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Oh, BTW Greg….my hubby grew up in Harrisonburg and went to JMU…imagine my surprise to hear you went there too!
August 1st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Elizabeth,
I did notice when he called him Remus - it underscored the change in their relationship I think. I don’t think Harry ever saw himself as Lupin’s equal or better, but in fact, he superseded him morally during their argument I think. I also think Harry took the title of “adult” in the wizarding world to heart . . .
August 1st, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Webby: Tolkein vehemently denies the inclusion of “allegory” into his work. I think however, despite his denial, there would have to be elements of his belief system and those are evident in the story. I think both his and JK’s belief system are incorporated as a matter of course as with any personal work . ..
August 1st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
By the way - everyone should actually see Equus. The subject matter is a bit disturbing but the play itself is actually pretty interesting and although the dialogue gets overlty intellectual at times, it’s not a bad play at all . . .
Qualifier: I do see a trend for theatre companies using the play as a hook though - because of the naked actors - to bring in people, especially by young or flailing theatre companies, and when this happens, it is generally acted badly. The play requires advanced acting skills and very able directing so do try and see it done by a reputable company if you go . . . wouldn’t want to turn anyone off of the theatre for life . . . and a really badly acted/directed play can do that.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:46 pm
JKR validated my point about the purpose of the epilogue. In her interview with Dateline, she points out the focus on Potter forgiving Snape. She points out another element that I didn’t catch: She wanted to highlight Teddy Lupin, to let us know that he turns out alright, despite having lost both parents when he was only a baby.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
What is the deal with Lily mentioning a vase that Petunia sent her? This has been nagging me since I finished the book. In the letter found in Sirius’ room, Lily mentions a vase that Petunia sent her. This was surely later on their adult lives, for what child would choose a vase as a gift? Just a thought, but I wanted y’all’s take on it. Were they in covert contact the whole time or what? From Deathly Hallows, I assumed that the strength of their relationship was broken when Lily boarded the train to Hogwarts b/c Petunia had such immense jealousy which became hatred.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Hi Penny and Greg! Love your discussions!
In regards to Voldemorts spells not working, While Harry was under the invisbility cloak he was shielding people from Voldemorts spells and that is why some people weren’t being effected by his spells. It mentions at one point during that time that Voldemort was in fact hitting some people with his spells, but that Harry was saving who he could. When Harry is telling Voldemort that he can’t hurt anyone i think he is lying to Voldemort to make him more scared. In reality it was Harry shielding those people from under his cloak, making it look as if Voldemorts spells weren’t working. When Harry gave himself up without a fight he saved only himself from dying, not the people in Hogwarts.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 am
One question that has been in my mind since finishing DH is how could Voldemort’s soul be fragmented by the curse that bounced off Harry. I thought that the only way to break up one’s soul was to commit murder, and then the wizard would have to make some spell in order to encase that fragment inside another body or object. Which leads to the question of how could the fragment “possess” Harry after exiting Voldemort’s body.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 am
Abraham: It says in the story that Voldy’s soul was already so fragile, that in the heinous act of killing Harry’s parents and attempting child murder, many things went wrong, including that bit of soul embedding itself into harry - no other explanation is given except that it’s explained that funny things happen when you break your soul into too many pieces, not all of them predictable . . .
Megan - yes, you are right. Harry was protecting people from under the cloak. I do think however, that Moldy’s spells lost some of their juice as evidenced by Neville