St Mungo's
St Mungo's
Home | Profile | Active Topics | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 First Floor.......................Canon Obsessions
 Philosopher to Hallows
 JKR.com updated
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Siobhan
Chief Healer

USA
2157 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2007 :  22:25:30  Show Profile Send Siobhan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
JKR has updated her website.
http://www.jkrowling.com/en/thankyou.cfm

Charlie Weasley's birthday is the 12th of December.

There are some new bits of information in Extras, News, and FAQ's.

The best info was in the FAQ's where she answered two Deathly Hallows questions. One was about the King's Cross scene and the other (very interesting) about Voldemort's curses.

Deliberatley causing mayhem in Snape's Potions class.
Member of the HPEW & HPCS Appreciation Society
s.i.n.e. qua non

sunsethill
Confunded

USA
653 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2007 :  15:03:15  Show Profile  Visit sunsethill's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Siobhan
The best info was in the FAQ's where she answered two Deathly Hallows questions. One was about the King's Cross scene and the other (very interesting) about Voldemort's curses.

The information was very interesting. I will actually need to read it a few times to figure out what she was trying to do in those last chapters. It still bothers me that this wasn't obvious from actually reading the book, but the scenes may make more sense now. It's interesting that, against what everyone thought, Harry didn't actually die. He was injured, and Voldie's soul piece died, but Harry didn't.

Order of the Bookmark
Member HPEW & HPCS Appreciation Society
s.i.n.e qua non
Go to Top of Page

Siobhan
Chief Healer

USA
2157 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2007 :  17:46:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think that the lack of clarity is a sign that she was writing too fast-- and that her editors were too close to the material. She (and they?) knew what was going on, but forgot that we didn't. Most of the questions that have had to be answered later, it seems to me, would have been more properly addressed in the book itself. That is one of the book's weakest points.

Deliberatley causing mayhem in Snape's Potions class.
Member of the HPEW & HPCS Appreciation Society
s.i.n.e. qua non
Go to Top of Page

sunsethill
Confunded

USA
653 Posts

Posted - 12/13/2007 :  13:05:15  Show Profile  Visit sunsethill's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Yes, I think almost everyone assumed that Harry died. There are all those great fanfics that use King's Cross now as a meeting place for the dead as they decide to go on into eternity. I assumed that Harry was given a chance to come back because of his mother's sacrifice, not that he was protected from death by his mother's sacrifice as a type of horcrux. And Jo just keeps saying that DH is her favorite because she did what she meant to 17 years ago. Which just proves what you said, Siobhan. She's known what was going on for 17 years, but no one else did. And it will take a lot to convince me that the stupid Deathly Hallows were planned 17 years ago.

Order of the Bookmark
Member HPEW & HPCS Appreciation Society
s.i.n.e qua non
Go to Top of Page

Wizard from Milan
Barmy

236 Posts

Posted - 12/23/2007 :  22:50:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Interesting
Go to Top of Page

Eeyore
Barmy

USA
311 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2007 :  05:55:56  Show Profile  Send Eeyore a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Well, it does all seem to be in the way we read the book. I found her clarification just a confirmation of the way I understood it the first time I read it--and on reading DH again, it seemed very clear to me that Harry hadn't died but was injured and that the thing making the pitiful noise was what was left of Voldemort's soul.

Listening to Jo answer those questions reminded me of the answered questions inside the latest Pirates movie--mostly I found it surprising that people didn't get it.

But maybe that's because I was looking for, and hoping to find, just what I did in the book (and in Pirates, actually).

Eeyore

Order of the Bookmark
Member of HPEW & HPCS appreciation Society
s.i.n.e. qua non
Go to Top of Page

Siobhan
Chief Healer

USA
2157 Posts

Posted - 12/27/2007 :  15:11:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I didn't have any trouble identifying the nasty thing as Voldemort either, but the death aspect was a little ambiguous. The explaination of the wand business was what I found most helpful.

Deliberatley causing mayhem in Snape's Potions class.
Member of the HPEW & HPCS Appreciation Society
s.i.n.e. qua non
Go to Top of Page

sunsethill
Confunded

USA
653 Posts

Posted - 12/28/2007 :  14:37:26  Show Profile  Visit sunsethill's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Eeyore

Well, it does all seem to be in the way we read the book. I found her clarification just a confirmation of the way I understood it the first time I read it--and on reading DH again, it seemed very clear to me that Harry hadn't died but was injured and that the thing making the pitiful noise was what was left of Voldemort's soul.


I had to think about this for a few days, Eeyore. I realized that the problem I had with reading this scene as Harry being just terribly injured--enough so that he almost died and so the soul fragment died and then he could decide to return to life--is two-fold. First, DD told him that he had to die in order for the soul fragment to die. Now DD could have been wrong, but he didn't give even any hope that Harry could just come close to death. Also, Voldie used an AK which kills instantly. It doesn't maim or wound, but it kills instantly. Now I am sure that Rowling would argue that she set it up for Voldie's blood or Harry's sacrifice or Lily's sacrifice to keep the AK from being fatal, but I still argue that the AK leads to the assumption of death.

The second problem I have with it is that if Harry was merely wounded almost to death and then just chose to live rather than die, then he recovered awfully quickly from a near fatal injury. He was up and fighting Voldie, in no pain, almost instantly after "coming back." However, if he died and then had the choice to be resurrected, the imagery from Christianity of a resurrection to full health would fit much better with what we read.

So, as with many of her recent explanations, Jo's new information just raises more questions for me rather than answering them. I hope we get the transcript of the interviews soon, because I do want to see what she has to say about the whole wand thing, Siobhan. I don't think anything can make me more confused than I already am, and I would appreciate being a little less confused.

I think I should also say, in my defense, that I am usually a very astute reader. I accurately predicted many of the directions that Jo planned to go--things I couldn't understand why there was any debate on it among fans. I didn't read DH quickly, either. I did read for a LONG time and may have missed a few things, but again in my defense, I have seen numerous fanfictions that assumed Harry died in that pivotal scene. It wasn't just poor reading on my part.

Order of the Bookmark
Member HPEW & HPCS Appreciation Society
s.i.n.e qua non
Go to Top of Page

Wizard from Milan
Barmy

236 Posts

Posted - 01/01/2008 :  20:11:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
sunsethill, I think that Avada Kedavra is supposed to kill without injuring the body at all (I surmise it acts by detaching the soul from the body, but that is besides the point).
Then Harry did not fully die because Voldy's blood was acting as a horcrux for Harry. When Harry chose to come back his body was unscathed and ready for action.
Go to Top of Page

dobbygirl
Barmy

USA
300 Posts

Posted - 01/01/2008 :  22:09:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There are more updates! The "Do not enter" sign is down and if you click on the door, you get a look at the Weasley family tree, as it is today. She also added on Draco and Luna's families.

I knew that James's middle name was Sirius. And I love that Lily's middle name is Luna. I bet that was the one name that Ginny got to pick (she really got robbed in that department). Can anyone else read the name of Bill and Fleur's third child? I can't quite make it out.

Proud member of SINUS

Order of the Bookmark
Go to Top of Page

Siobhan
Chief Healer

USA
2157 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2008 :  12:47:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bill and Fleur's third child looks like Louis to me. Did George marry Angelina?
Too bad Charlie is unmarried. Perhaps he likes dragons too much? Must get him a copy of that book Hermione found in the library....

*snort* Luna = Rolf-- think this could also be written ROLF? Lysander comes from A Midsummer Night's Dream. Any reference for Lorcan?

James Sirius makes perfect sense. I also loved that Luna made it into the Potter family names.

Deliberatley causing mayhem in Snape's Potions class.
Member of the HPEW & HPCS Appreciation Society
s.i.n.e. qua non
Go to Top of Page

Theowyn
Looney

1078 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2008 :  15:30:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sunsethill

quote:
Originally posted by Eeyore

Well, it does all seem to be in the way we read the book. I found her clarification just a confirmation of the way I understood it the first time I read it--and on reading DH again, it seemed very clear to me that Harry hadn't died but was injured and that the thing making the pitiful noise was what was left of Voldemort's soul.


I had to think about this for a few days, Eeyore. I realized that the problem I had with reading this scene as Harry being just terribly injured--enough so that he almost died and so the soul fragment died and then he could decide to return to life--is two-fold. First, DD told him that he had to die in order for the soul fragment to die. Now DD could have been wrong, but he didn't give even any hope that Harry could just come close to death. Also, Voldie used an AK which kills instantly. It doesn't maim or wound, but it kills instantly. Now I am sure that Rowling would argue that she set it up for Voldie's blood or Harry's sacrifice or Lily's sacrifice to keep the AK from being fatal, but I still argue that the AK leads to the assumption of death.

The second problem I have with it is that if Harry was merely wounded almost to death and then just chose to live rather than die, then he recovered awfully quickly from a near fatal injury. He was up and fighting Voldie, in no pain, almost instantly after "coming back." However, if he died and then had the choice to be resurrected, the imagery from Christianity of a resurrection to full health would fit much better with what we read.

So, as with many of her recent explanations, Jo's new information just raises more questions for me rather than answering them. I hope we get the transcript of the interviews soon, because I do want to see what she has to say about the whole wand thing, Siobhan. I don't think anything can make me more confused than I already am, and I would appreciate being a little less confused.

I think I should also say, in my defense, that I am usually a very astute reader. I accurately predicted many of the directions that Jo planned to go--things I couldn't understand why there was any debate on it among fans. I didn't read DH quickly, either. I did read for a LONG time and may have missed a few things, but again in my defense, I have seen numerous fanfictions that assumed Harry died in that pivotal scene. It wasn't just poor reading on my part.

SH, I agree that injured!Harry makes no sense. He clearly wasn't injured. Furthermore, I agree that Harry dying would provide a better Christ parallel. Perhaps JKR is taking this stance because she has insisted that no one can come back from the dead. But really, that rule more properly applies to those who have "crossed over", so maybe this is mostly an issue of semantics. If JKR equates dying with crossing over into the afterlife, then Harry obviously didn't die. But I would argue that his soul did leave his body. The AK ripped both his and LV's souls from that physical vessel, hence we see both Harry and scalybabymort at Kings Cross. Harry was then given the choice to return to his body or go on to death and the afterlife.

Order of the Bookmark

s.i.n.e. qua non

"Always"
Go to Top of Page

sunsethill
Confunded

USA
653 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2008 :  16:45:18  Show Profile  Visit sunsethill's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Theowyn
SH, I agree that injured!Harry makes no sense. He clearly wasn't injured. Furthermore, I agree that Harry dying would provide a better Christ parallel. Perhaps JKR is taking this stance because she has insisted that no one can come back from the dead. But really, that rule more properly applies to those who have "crossed over", so maybe this is mostly an issue of semantics. If JKR equates dying with crossing over into the afterlife, then Harry obviously didn't die. But I would argue that his soul did leave his body. The AK ripped both his and LV's souls from that physical vessel, hence we see both Harry and scalybabymort at Kings Cross. Harry was then given the choice to return to his body or go on to death and the afterlife.

Ah, I agree that the problem might be a semantic one. I have always felt that if one's soul separates from the body, that the body has died. As you say, the Kings Cross imagery, since babymort is there, is one of souls separated from the body. But if Rowling considers death to be the "decision" to move on into the afterlife, then I guess one could say Harry didn't die. But that leaves me to wonder what she would say about ghosts. Ghosts are dead, but refused to continue on into the afterlife.

quote:
sunsethill, I think that Avada Kedavra is supposed to kill without injuring the body at all (I surmise it acts by detaching the soul from the body, but that is besides the point).
Then Harry did not fully die because Voldy's blood was acting as a horcrux for Harry. When Harry chose to come back his body was unscathed and ready for action.
Wizard, I agree that Harry's body would be "uninjured" by the AK, but it would still be "dead", so I would still count that as a resurrection rather than a "not dying but severely injured" return. It probably is a semantic thing after all.

I'm off to investigate the family tree. Thanks for the heads up.

Order of the Bookmark
Member HPEW & HPCS Appreciation Society
s.i.n.e qua non
Go to Top of Page

Theowyn
Looney

1078 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2008 :  11:41:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sunsethill

quote:
Originally posted by Theowyn
SH, I agree that injured!Harry makes no sense. He clearly wasn't injured. Furthermore, I agree that Harry dying would provide a better Christ parallel. Perhaps JKR is taking this stance because she has insisted that no one can come back from the dead. But really, that rule more properly applies to those who have "crossed over", so maybe this is mostly an issue of semantics. If JKR equates dying with crossing over into the afterlife, then Harry obviously didn't die. But I would argue that his soul did leave his body. The AK ripped both his and LV's souls from that physical vessel, hence we see both Harry and scalybabymort at Kings Cross. Harry was then given the choice to return to his body or go on to death and the afterlife.

Ah, I agree that the problem might be a semantic one. I have always felt that if one's soul separates from the body, that the body has died. As you say, the Kings Cross imagery, since babymort is there, is one of souls separated from the body. But if Rowling considers death to be the "decision" to move on into the afterlife, then I guess one could say Harry didn't die. But that leaves me to wonder what she would say about ghosts. Ghosts are dead, but refused to continue on into the afterlife.
It seems that at the point at which a soul is separated from its body, a person is given a choice. Harry was given a unique choice - to return to his body and life, but most people don't have that option. They simply have the choice to go on or to linger on the physical plane. I think it's the act of making that decision and moving into one's chosen version of an afterlife that marks the true moment of death, and from what Nick tells Harry in OotP, this choice seems to be final. Once someone becomes a ghost, they don't seem to have the ability to move on anymore, but remain in a sad sort of limbo, caught between life and the next great adventure.

Order of the Bookmark

s.i.n.e. qua non

"Always"
Go to Top of Page

Bee
Mediwizard

846 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  18:26:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Luna stole my hypothetical baby's name!

Actually, that just made it cooler.

Order of the Bookmark
Purveyor of Fine Peebles
Haggy is (probably not) Cactus!
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
St Mungo's © 2010 Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000
HP Galleries Wing at St Mungo's is in no way affiliated with JK Rowling, her publishers, Warner Brothers, any of its partners within the Harry Potter franchise, or any religious or healthcare institution.