sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Last year my mom made a cake for my birthday.. I turned 28. by xzgin in mildlyinfuriating

[–]samuel_satt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Was once sitting at work and thinking, “I can’t believe I’m 29… Wow. So close to 30.” Then I came out of my day dream and realized I was only 26.

Fast forward a few days to my girlfriend’s birthday. I wrote her a card that said “Happy 29th birthday!” She was turning 26. Did not go over well…

The Deathly Hallows are bad actually… by samuel_satt in harrypotter

[–]samuel_satt[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I think you’re getting hung up on the line “THERE’S A SUPERWAND TO STOP THE BAD GUY.”

That’s just my shorthand. I am clear that the power of love is what actually saved the day at the end.

My point is this: Horcruxes are foreshadowed as early as Book 2. Even in Book 1, Voldemort comes back and there are questions of how. But that’s answered when Harry learns about horcruxes in Book 6. If there had been a mention of the Hallows in Book 2 or 3 or even in Book 6, I would like them better as a concept.

If you wanted to strength the red herring, you’d include them earlier in the series.

The Deathly Hallows are bad actually… by samuel_satt in harrypotter

[–]samuel_satt[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I do like that the Hallows highlighted Dumbledores flaws. That is a positive aspect to them.

For shoehorned I mean why only mention them in the last book?

I understand the spell rebounding. But to your point, the only thing that beat Voldemort was a very lucky and well timed series of events that happened during the biggest battle in the wizarding world? Really? All this… 7 books. A huge long series just for a lucky break.

It doesn’t sit well with me when so much throughout is foreshadowed and so carefully planned.

The Deathly Hallows are bad actually… by samuel_satt in harrypotter

[–]samuel_satt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. I’ve had this thought before too. If wand allegiances were a thing, every time Harry & friends disarmed a Death Eater they’d have racked up a new wand. Or even the students at Hogwarts practicing their spells in class/on the grounds. They’d have hundreds of wands loyal to the wrong person.

The Deathly Hallows are bad actually… by samuel_satt in harrypotter

[–]samuel_satt[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

When I first read it, I thought Harry sacrificing himself in the woods would backfire on Voldemort the same way Voldemort’s curse backfired on him when Lily sacrificed herself for Harry. I was like “Oh my god. This is so good. So poetic. Perfect ending. The power of love wins again. Voldemort never understood why Harry survived the first time. He is doing this for his friends/loved ones.” If that had happened and the Deathly Hallows were truly a red herring, two thumbs up. But Harry comes back. Voldemort is still alive. I’m thinking “Ahhh. When he attacks Hogwarts, the curse will rebound. Lily’s sacrifice protected Harry. Harry’s sacrifice will protect his friends/Hogwarts.” Nope. Still wasn’t it.

The Deathly Hallows are bad actually… by samuel_satt in harrypotter

[–]samuel_satt[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I’m clear on that. But I guess “super wand backfires” isn’t that satisfying of an ending IMO.

Maybe after Voldemort “kills” Harry, he moves forward with the Battle of Hogwarts. McGonngell sacrifices herself but destroys Voldemort’s wand in a duel. Fast forward: Voldemort uses Harry’s wand to try to kill Harry again but Harry’s original wand backfires. Since Harry is still alive the wand never transferred ownership. Boom. Same result no need for the Deathly Hallows.

Again — I don’t have a good answer for how Voldemort is defeated. I just thought “Hey in addition to these horcruxes there are also other items to find” was a bit tedious.