Was Harry Potter clever?

[RobertoCarlos]

Similarly, my main gripe was with the themes, especially with the 7th book. Six books are built up on how Harry can't do it alone, how he needs his friends (and maybe even his teachers), how love can conquer all......and he ends up just trying to go get the Horcruxes off by himself, if not for Hermione and Ron insisting they go with him. The whole series is about found family, especially in re: the Weasleys, and he just fucks off on an adventure.

Then, the adventures become too rushed and contrived. Ms. Rowling did herself a disservice having to find three and kill four Horcruxes in one book, even if they were sure Nagini was one. It ended up that the snake puts itself in an vulnerable position to be killed, the sword to kill the locket literally comes to him on a whim (granted, it did that in book 2 as well, so it's a contrivance throughout), then the goblet and tiara were only found because of Voldemort's arrogance and a convenient ghost who knew all the info. He could have put his soul in a halfpenny and drop it into a well and it'd never be found, but they had to be objects associated with the Founders.

More than anything, I didn't like moving away from Hogwarts for the 7th book. When I finished the 6th, it seemed pretty clear to me what the path forward should be: Dumbledore in his will appoints Harry as DaDA teacher, who has just come of age (17 in the wizarding world). Because the position has been cursed, it's literally a death sentence over Harry. Maybe Snape still comes over as Headmaster, ostensibly as a puppet for Voldemort but a showdown between him and Harry early on solidifies Snape as Actually A Good Guy For Realsies. I thought the pensieve exoneration of Snape was dumb because Voldemort could have instantly killed him and no one would have ever known his heroics. In the end duel, either Harry should have died, or Snape died protecting him and betraying Voldemort.

7th book was a mess, frankly, especially after the height of the series which was 3-6.

The fact voldemort choose important heirlooms instead of random coins is because of his ego.

[Tentim]

Weirdly, I lauded books 3-6, you astroturf for book 7, and you "hope it isn't because Rowling is a TERF" when you're dismissing an actual literary critique of the book. It makes me wonder if you're defending the book BECAUSE she's a TERF, because you spend most of your time on this subforum whining about the same shit she whines about. Because book 7 was a mess (in my opinion).

And here's why your literary analysis sucks:

I disagree that it was ever a theme that Harry had to grow into this thing to handle himself. For him to be a good character, he has to learn to trust and rely on his friends, but book 7 tries to immediately show him not learning shit. Him trying to go off alone (even though he fails and Ron/Hermione go with him) is him not growing as a character, even if he fails to do so. Character growth is more important than the actual plot details of them being together - because internally, he wanted to do it alone. Dumbledore, for books, has said not to dismiss his friends. He emphasizes that Harry's status as "Chosen One" was a supremacist belief of Voldemort's that unfortunately tapped Harry when it could have easily been Neville. It is all about Voldemort's insecurities as a half-blood, his self-hatred of his muggle father, that leads to the supremacist beliefs in purebloods that he and the Death Eaters revel in. Book 5 was entirely about building up an order to fight Voldemort, both outside of Hogwarts (with the adults), and inside (with Harry teaching DaDA already, in the Room of Requirement, to Dumbledore's Army). The whole point is that anyone can fight Voldemort, and many have died and given everything to do so - and that's not less important than Harry's fight, except for Voldemort literally creating Harry as the only thing thing that can stop him.

Book 6 was all about how Salazar Slytherin (wrongly) divided Hogwarts into Houses so he could foster his pureblood mania, and how the other 3 Founders had to eventually expel him because he was legit a pureblood supremacist. The whole point of the book is that the Half-Blood Prince isn't some noble being helping Harry out but a lonely teenage Snape who Harry identifies with, showing that anyone is quite literally capable of anything.

I don't know how long it's been since you read book 7, but literarily, it was rushed. Yes, it was months in the timeline, but that timeline is largely skipped in the books, compressing it into less than a hundred pages. I didn't even mention how the book offers up 3 more Maguffins in the Deathly Hallows themselves, only to say Harry's had one since Year 1, is gifted one in Dumbledore's will (after being in ONE OF VOLDEMORT'S HORCRUXES WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE FOR....50 years?!?), and the other one was in Dumbledore's possession for 6 years of Harry's 7 at Hogwarts, and has been in his possession since...World War 2? All three Deathly Hallows, in fact, are in either Dumbledore's or Harry's possession for all of Year 6, and it's never part of Dumbledore's lessons for Harry. The machinations to turn the Elder Wand into a wand loyal to Harry despite him never even possessing it because Draco "defeated" Dumbledore by disarming him, and Harry defeated Draco, is also contrived, because countless wands have been disarmed in this series and the wands never change allegiances. You would think the Elder Wand, being a gift from Death, would require more to change allegiances. Contrivance.

As for the Horcruxes themselves: there were six intended, one unintended. Harry was one himself, that Voldemort created unintentionally, which is why he had to die. Fine. I wish the book had the gumption to actually kill Harry for good, especially since Rowling stated she didn't want there to be a continuation of the books, which is why she put the 19 years later epilogue in. One was a ring that Dumbledore found "off screen" so to speak, and destroyed before Harry even knew what a Horcrux was. Destroying that ring was so difficult we learn in book 7 that it would have eventually killed Dumbledore even though he had managed to hold it at bay. Super high stakes for destroying the others, right? Except, not, destroying the others had no negative consequences. One was Tom Riddle's diary, which ends up in the hands of the good guys ON PURPOSE in book 2. It makes sense for the diary to be a dark object that Malfoy is using to try and create a stir in his racist agenda - it doesn't make sense to retcon it at the end of book 6 as a Horcrux that Voldy never told Malfoy about lest he...yanno, try and use it. One was the locket they spent all of book 6 trying to find - only for it to have been stolen by Regulus Black 10 years earlier, for which he was killed, and Dumbledore dies, and we find out another Horcrux was within literal touching distance of the good guys for years. We eventually get it back because it...was literally a bribe from a thief who stole it out of the Black house at 11 Grimauld Place. These are the three intentionally created Horcruxes we know about before book 7.

The three afterwards: you have Hufflepuff's goblet. It's a D&D one shot bank robbery to get this out of Bellatrix's vault after lucking into her wand and using a Forbidden Curse (which you spent the whole 4th book decrying the use of), and the only Polyjuice/disguise detection is when you're already on the minecarts on your way to the vaults. Destroyed by the same method of the diary - a basilisk fang, because apparently basilisk poison doesn't dry up 5 years after death and exposure. Still not sure why a basilisk can destroy highly magical items like Tom Riddle's diary even before we know it's a Horcrux, let alone a Horcrux, the most evil and magical of objects. It's not like a basilisk is diametrically or thematically opposed to evil - in fact, it is quite evil itself. Ravenclaw's diadem has, again, been in Hogwarts for 50 years, in a room Harry has been in before, and he's even noticed the tiara sitting on a mannequin in book 5. No story on how Voldy obtained it, or why he would hide it in the Room of Requirement, when it was Dumbledore's turf for the entire 50 years it was there. Nagini is the last Horcrux, and instead of protecting her, Voldy sends her on missions, alone, like in Godric's Hollow, where she could have easily been killed. In the end, Neville pulls Griffyndor's sword out of a hat (literally) and kills her while she's wandering and attacking people in Hogwarts. Of the six Horcruxes, 2 were destroyed by basilisk fang (diary/goblet), 3 by Griffyndor's sword (ring/locket/Nagini), and the diadem was destroyed....on accident, by a magical fire summoned by a 7th year Hogwarts student.

All rushed, not well written, and conveniently placed within relatively easy grasp, and relatively easily destroyed because the plot had to hurry along to the final showdown.

Just because the sword was a contrivance in Chamber of Secrets doesn't mean it was "established" enough to not be a contrivance in Deathly Hallows.

Now, for the suggestion I had of Harry being DaDA teacher: Rufus Scrimgeour was begging Harry to help lead them in the fight against Voldemort. The Ministry wouldn't have objected. In fact, they wanted him to be the public face, The Chosen One, leading the fight against Voldemort. This is literally in the book. Secondly, Hogwarts is kind of a character in and of itself. Dumbledore being dead doesn't make all its protections fade. It has had hundreds of Headmasters working to protect it for thousands of years. It still has very talented witches and wizards in McGonagall and Flitwick and even Slughorn to protect it. And having Harry there, protected by Hogwarts magic (remember, Snape can't even get his way into the Headmaster's office), and maybe some magic from Dumbledore's will sets up a deliciously tense showdown. You can still expand book 7 as Snape's story, as he tries to navigate trying to publically be against Harry as Voldemort's installed-but-seen-as-illegitimate Headmaster, while surreptitiously trying to help Harry and protect the students (the latter was implied in book 7 but we never get to see it). The Pensieve is a poor expository for Snape's story because it happens after his death, and it could have easily never happened if Nagini just went for the throat or Voldy Avada Kedavra's him. One of the interesting elements of Snape's Occlumency lessons with Harry in an earlier book is that we get to learn about Snape's backstory in a natural, organic way: when Harry catches him by surprise by rebounding his Legelimins curse allowing him to see into Snape's mind, instead of vice versa. Just as Dumbledore was giving Harry secret lessons in book 6, Snape should have been secretly (and more dangerously, because if found out, he would be killed by Voldy) giving Harry the truth of who he was. Then, in the final showdown, where Harry goes to die, he not only has the love of all these dead people behind him, but living, breathing, talented witches and wizards. To me, it made sense that Snape would be the one to bring Harry to Voldemort to be killed, as part of their collaborative plan (because again, THE ENTIRE SERIES is about Harry needing to overcome his snap judgements of people like Snape, and work with his friends and allies), only for Snape to either 1) betray Voldemort after Harry's death and kill Voldemort, and perhaps resurrect Harry with...idk, Snape's love for Lilly, a last protection Voldemort couldn't anticipate, or 2) sacrifice himself so Harry doesn't have to die. Instead, Snape dies in a private meeting with Voldemort which, by happenstance, is being eavesdropped on by Harry without Snape/Voldy knowing, and his death isn't immediate, allowing him to give Harry some denouement revelations. Which is trash.

I hope the length of this post reassures you that I was indeed a fan of these books. All 7 are on my bookshelf right now. Book 1 and 2 were the works of a novice writer and I don't really fault Rowling for any clumsiness in them. Books 3-6 were legit good, because they started to hone in on the character and the relationships between them. Book 7 was a mess: it was rushed, it became a weird scavenger hunt for Maguffins, the characters didn't reach the end of their arc til the last 20 pages where they suddenly had a revelation of who they should be, and the themes were not delivered on.

I have to agree with most of what you are saying. The only mistakes I can see is with the ring. It wasn't destroying it that wounded Dumbledore it was him putting on the ring believing it to be one of the deathly Hallows ( why he thought that and how he had the actual stone is glossed over).

I don't really get why harry didn't die either... they say its because the horcrux linked them but if they didn't wouldnt that also mean the snake wouldn't die or does goblin metal negate that?

I enjoyed the books but it's best to take them as a happy go lucky tale rather then a really in depth world building series like the wheel of time or mazalon tales of the fallen.

Most of "world building" of Harry Potter comes from the absolutely amazing set designs used in the movies rather then the books.

[Mace]

I have to agree with most of what you are saying. The only mistakes I can see is with the ring. It wasn't destroying it that wounded Dumbledore it was him putting on the ring believing it to be one of the deathly Hallows ( why he thought that and how he had the actual stone is glossed over).

I don't really get why harry didn't die either... they say its because the horcrux linked them but if they didn't wouldnt that also mean the snake wouldn't die or does goblin metal negate that?

I enjoyed the books but it's best to take them as a happy go lucky tale rather then a really in depth world building series like the wheel of time or mazalon tales of the fallen.

Most of "world building" of Harry Potter comes from the absolutely amazing set designs used in the movies rather then the books.

Harry didn't die because Voldermot couldn't kill him. As long as voldermot was the one to curse Hary, Harry wouldn't die. The whole blood exchange thing + mum's protection + love + pure. Voldermot empowered Harry further when he used his blood to bring him back to his body.

Voldermot thought he was making himself more powerful and impervious to Harry - as we saw he was able to touch Harry without unberable pain, but as we learn in the last obok, that blood also made it impossible for Voldermortto be able to kill Harry.

What happened to the 7th Horcrux? was it the ugly child in Harry's death experience? or is it still in Harry? I think the ultimate excuse is that when Voldi killed Harry in the forest, what he actually killed was his horcrux, nor Harry, which is why Harry went to the in between place - but I'm theorising here.

[eschatological]

My understanding is Voldy wanted to split his soul in 7, and thus made 6 Horcruxes on purpose (diary, ring, locket, diadem, cup, and eventually Nagini when he "failed" to create the 6th when killing the Potters). Presumably, he knew they were Godric's ancestors, and maybe knew that they had artifacts of Griffyndor to complete his "Founders set" of Horcruxes. Nagini was later a backup plan once he was resurrected.

Harry's scar (as far as I can tell), is the inadvertant 7th Horcrux (splitting Voldy's soul into 8 pieces). Like you said, I think when Voldy AKed Harry, he was killing his last Horcrux, but I think the reason Harry survives is because he turns the Resurrection Stone like 3 times before he faces off with Voldy. That puts him in the inbetween place, where Dumbledore tells him he has a choice whether he comes back or not. My theory is Dumbledore had used the resurrection stone and was just waiting for him....and then choose to move on.

[Mace]

My understanding is Voldy wanted to split his soul in 7, and thus made 6 Horcruxes on purpose (diary, ring, locket, diadem, cup, and eventually Nagini when he "failed" to create the 6th when killing the Potters). Presumably, he knew they were Godric's ancestors, and maybe knew that they had artifacts of Griffyndor to complete his "Founders set" of Horcruxes. Nagini was later a backup plan once he was resurrected.

Harry's scar (as far as I can tell), is the inadvertant 7th Horcrux (splitting Voldy's soul into 8 pieces). Like you said, I think when Voldy AKed Harry, he was killing his last Horcrux, but I think the reason Harry survives is because he turns the Resurrection Stone like 3 times before he faces off with Voldy. That puts him in the inbetween place, where Dumbledore tells him he has a choice whether he comes back or not. My theory is Dumbledore had used the resurrection stone and was just waiting for him....and then choose to move on.

Do we have direct proof that Voldemort did destroy his horcrux in Harry? cos for me it's just deduction
.

If any horcrux survived having it contained i Harry could make it impossible for Voldemort to return, which could be an interesting story line later on, especially if it exerts some influence on Harry.

I think JK could have given Harry more powers through Voldy's horcrux really, only being able to speak Parsel tongue seems highly superficial. IF you can get as much as parseltongue from the horcrux, surely he would inherit genius and incredible ambition and thirst for power which would constantly be defeated through love and selflessness.

I mean having only parsel tongue seems a bit lame while a cool effect, I'd have expected more.. like at least incredible skill with the wand. Harry's reflexes being top notch in quidditch don't even transfer to wand casting.

Let's examine the rest:
Harry has incentive to be academically ambitious - i mean, the wizarding world is the first time he's ever felt special, similar to Voldy, like her really belongs, this should stir an appetite as large as Hermione's to learn more, and quest for knowledge hampered ONLY by the time it takes to get through his scrapes and quidditch. Quidditch he would love, like spell casting, because it is something he is good at, very good at.

Big difference in harry and Voldemort is character - while Voldy likes to feel special in the way that he is above everyone else, especially Voldy, Harry likes to bbe special because desires love and this is why Harry doesn't go dark. But aside from this.

I would have made more of the scar also, like it paining whenver he went against Voldy's nature, and inheriting Voldy's stubornness but in Harry it plays out against the Horcrux's influence, voldy's stubbornenss in Harry actually works at ressisting his temptations to to make other people pay.

I would have also used the scar pains as an excuse to why Harry doesn't get O's in everything he does, the pains often making it much harder to concentrate or dtudy, but the upside of it is that harry takes extremely well to Occulmemancy .. I don't understand how Harry is just so bad at Occulmancy, fighting with the scar pain should have boosted his level of concentration and his male attriubte of focusing intensely on one thing, which he does in QUidditch clearly despite his not inconsiderable destractions should actually make him great at it.

Harry's is able to be tricked by Voldermort because Harry doesn't trust snapes lessons and has laready decided to let his great curisoity get the better half of him, so instead o harry not being able to master occulmancy, Harry master iit but in his arrogance, decides to open up to what his scar iconnection with Voldy is howing, when this results in the death of Sirius it's a character changing moment that brings the necessary strength to conquer arrogance, bringing the necessary humility Harry needs


I would have expected Harry to be the best of the three both at Quidditch and spell casting, but Hermione the most knoweldgeablyle. I woudl have also expected his ambition to learn to be much higher. This i think ROwlings erred in order to make Hermione stand out more.. she write Harry it seems half forgetting he would naturally be highly motivated to learn and also being a horcrux himself.

SHe also downplays his casting skill, she should have emphsized that more, perhaps pushing harry's quick wits, creativity and quick reflexes in casting as very strong points.


Without Voldy's horcrux, judging by his parents, Lilly and James seemed to be top mark students. Harry woudl have inherited both his father's quick reflexes and seeker skills and his mother's brightness and subtlety, this would have or oculd have made him excellent in everything, both briany and talented. but with vildy's horcrux, that should have gone an extra level adding parsel tongue, cunning and ambition - Harry should perhaps have also hd greater internal struggles with pride

- - - Updated - - -

Given Harry's parentage and being a horcrux himself, here are the exceptional and special abilities. Here is how I perhaps would have enhanced Harry in hte books without altering his character.

Quidditch - just like in the current books
Super fast reflexes - evidenced in both for spell casting and quidditch. Harry is always fastest with the wand, drawing, casting and defending
really quick witted.
Power - Harry's spells would be powerful both due to his own emotional and experiential depth and passions in addition to Voldemort's power - this would come off as Harry's spells always been quite powerful in class or in activities like his Patronus was,

Spell casting - Harry just has a natural instinct for spell casting. Considered genius is that he only needs to hear or see a spell once before he can do it just as well ore ven better, and often enough comes up with spells far more advanced than his year - this spell memory is from Voldy's horcrux. This combined with his own natural ability shoudl make Harry really special with new spells - wile Hermione because of reading knowledge, is still able to come up with all the spells she does in the story
Ambition and knowledge - Harry is voracious to learn, but is impeded greatly by all the things he is going through, this is why his spell casting genius allows him to compensate for lots of missed lessons and clearly not knowing as much as Hermione - but also made clear that he isn't able to do much studying because of the adventures during school time and the restrictions at Privet drive during the holidays.

Most of these are fluff, in that they don't change the outcome of the encounters he has, but I think cating more emphasis on these makes Harry more believable. Currently in the book his achievments on the field are not shared in the classroom or school. The way she writes him in school with lessons and classes doesn't match with the Harry we see when he faces challenges in the adventure parts of the books. This mismatch bugs me, and i think the above is a believable tweak to his presentation. JK makes him too ordinary in a way that doens't match all the speical things she gives him - like she wants to tell the novelty of spell casting from a fairly average personn's persepctive, and yet nothing about Harry is average.. not his parents, not his situation, not even himself.

To me, Harry being able to be down to earth despite being so clearly gifted and skilled would also be remarkable, like he priases from his friends never goes to his head - and while Harry does get praised for quidditch and foor triumphing in his adventures, it's like Jk didn't want to make himm good at class which doens't makes snese

Hermione only has knowledge and cleverness to her.

Ron is just like Harry without the achievements - which makes me wonder why Harry couldn't have been more believably better in terms of school.

I would have made Malfoy a bit more impressive too he comes off as a total idiot. Mentioning Malfoy coming third to say Hermoine and Harry in class, and sometimes top may have helped, although with Malfoy the idea may have been the classic over entitled rich boy who thinks he is clearly a lot more than he actually is because his parents a rich and nobility in the wizarding world.. But this is where I would have used Crab and Goyle ore often or a few other Slytherin characters.

But maybe harry potter works so well because it plays out like the typical high school experience. You have to feel you're like Harry, or Ron or Hermione, and Malfoy is like your typical rich kid , while Crab and Goyle the henchmen type bullies. My pint is Harry though makes too many excellent and clever deductions and performs too well outside school , that his schoool narrative or rather class room experience doesn't match at all. The Harry that takes on Voldy, 4 times, the ministry, Sirius etc. Especially in the lst book where I'm sorry, but Harry is truly exceptional

[eschatological]

I think the proof we're supposed to accept that Voldy killed his last Horcrux when he AKed Harry was that he was defeated, and in the "19 years later" epilogue the literal last line of the book, I believe, is how the scar hadn't tingled in 19 years....something it had done all his life before Voldy died.

[Syegfryed]

My understanding is Voldy wanted to split his soul in 7, and thus made 6 Horcruxes on purpose (diary, ring, locket, diadem, cup, and eventually Nagini when he "failed" to create the 6th when killing the Potters). Presumably, he knew they were Godric's ancestors, and maybe knew that they had artifacts of Griffyndor to complete his "Founders set" of Horcruxes. Nagini was later a backup plan once he was resurrected.

From what i remember, He did Nagini horcrux after killing His father, or even before, he already had 6, he wanted to make the 7th with Harry as a symbolism, doing his last with the killing of the one in the prophecy.

We just don't know which artifact he would use

Harry's scar (as far as I can tell), is the inadvertant 7th Horcrux (splitting Voldy's soul into 8 pieces). Like you said, I think when Voldy AKed Harry, he was killing his last Horcrux, but I think the reason Harry survives is because he turns the Resurrection Stone like 3 times before he faces off with Voldy. That puts him in the inbetween place, where Dumbledore tells him he has a choice whether he comes back or not. My theory is Dumbledore had used the resurrection stone and was just waiting for him....and then choose to move on.

The resurrection stone can only bring images/echos of the dead, he survived because Voldemort had his blood, and that acted like an "anchor" so he could return, similar to a horcrux

[Fabinas]

I actually thought and prepared a very nice answer to your post.

But why bother? There's bias in you, so obvious, that you accuse me of whining about what Rowling whines about. Why discuss with someone so biased? I'm not here to defend any ideology or show my superior "debating" skills.

I'll just leave it at this. Your 7th book of Harry Potter would have been a huge disappointment. Thank the deities you aren't Rowling. Not that she's a literature and writing giant, but at least she made an ending worthy of a teen growing up and taking his life on his own hands. Something that didn't happen at all in all of the rest books, where everyone else was pushing him into situations a teen wouldn't manage on his own.

[Mace]

I actually thought and prepared a very nice answer to your post.

But why bother? There's bias in you, so obvious, that you accuse me of whining about what Rowling whines about. Why discuss with someone so biased? I'm not here to defend any ideology or show my superior "debating" skills.

I'll just leave it at this. Your 7th book of Harry Potter would have been a huge disappointment. Thank the deities you aren't Rowling. Not that she's a literature and writing giant, but at least she made an ending worthy of a teen growing up and taking his life on his own hands. Something that didn't happen at all in all of the rest books, where everyone else was pushing him into situations a teen wouldn't manage on his own.

Do it for other people, sometimes even if the person you respond to appears annoying or indifferent and not worth the response, others can benefit and even add to it for a productive discussion.

I would appreciate any nice answer to anything I write, even if I disagreed with the person earlier or even still disagree, it's always worth it when it's good. I read everybody's response, regardless of agreement or disagreement.