A different take on HP

the Renegade said:
So, a guy who is a big fan of the series decided to interpret the ending of the series a little differently than everyone else. For those Harry Potter fans out there, you might not want to read this.

http://www.tickld.com/x/this-guy-just-changed-the-way-we-see-harry-potter-
Click to expand...
I've heard this theory floating around several times since the book first came out, but since we see Harry aging, I'd tend to discount it. But that's my personal opinion.

It's not that new, though.
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Sybill_Trelawney's_first_prophecy

It's food for thought, though, since it is a good point.
 
I think it's like he was aging while the two were alive but once Voldemort died, he stops aging or stops at a certain point and then ends up living forever. I don't know. I found it and thought it would be a good discussion.
 
My mind was more blown about this thing that was at the bottom of the page:
a9f4054f4605275d6eb2f020ab5a2fcf.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Defibyoulater and Renegade
it's a very popular opinion that Harry cannot die now that Voldemort is dead but from what I've taken from the books is this: his mothers protection provided a "block" from a specific person (Voldemort) not being able to kill Harry with a specific spell. so does not mean Harry is immortal. also i looked into it on some other sites and saw someone say (about "neither can lives while the other survives") and saw this:
"It also has a different interpretation, that becomes clear later. Voldemort is in a state that is neither life nor death, and for that reason cannot be killed. This state can only be ended when certain objects are destroyed, and Harry is one of those objects. This means that while Harry survives, Voldemort cannot truly live, and cannot truly die. Harry dies, and comes back to life. Harry's death is the destruction of the last object that keeps Voldemort in his non-life/non-death state, so Voldemort truly lives when Harry stops surviving. Then they can kill him."
 
Rhi said:
it's a very popular opinion that Harry cannot die now that Voldemort is dead but from what I've taken from the books is this: his mothers protection provided a "block" from a specific person (Voldemort) not being able to kill Harry with a specific spell. so does not mean Harry is immortal. also i looked into it on some other sites and saw someone say (about "neither can lives while the other survives") and saw this:
"It also has a different interpretation, that becomes clear later. Voldemort is in a state that is neither life nor death, and for that reason cannot be killed. This state can only be ended when certain objects are destroyed, and Harry is one of those objects. This means that while Harry survives, Voldemort cannot truly live, and cannot truly die. Harry dies, and comes back to life. Harry's death is the destruction of the last object that keeps Voldemort in his non-life/non-death state, so Voldemort truly lives when Harry stops surviving. Then they can kill him."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. I feel like when JK Rowling wrote that part, her intent was to make it seem like a double meaning to kind of mess with the readers. Well, it kind of worked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back