Hallows of Hogwarts “for years” working title of DH


Jan 19, 2009

Posted by Melissa Anelli

A small but fun factual nugget was hidden in the JKR interview from Harry, A History (which is available here). I’ve posted it now on the Web site. It seems Hallows of Hogwarts was a working title for DH; this title had been trademarked along with a bunch of others but (it seems) hadn’t ever been pegged as an actual working title – until now. A fun fact for all of us who like to obsess. Click the link to read more and enjoy!

62 Responses to Hallows of Hogwarts “for years” working title of DH

Avatar Image says: pretty cool factAvatar Image says: Can you Imagine? Harry Potter and The Hallows of Hogwarts That's a lot of H's!Avatar Image says: Hmmm... I actually kind of like it. Has a nice ring.Avatar Image says: Okay, the first sentence of that post led me to believe that the transcript from that interview was posted online for a minute. My eyes just about popped out of my head but yeah, too many H's.Avatar Image says: Oh, woops. LOL. Fixed that. I do explain in the post why I don't just publish the interview though.Avatar Image says: Question: Is Harry distantly related to Salazar Slytherin and Voldemort? Because Harry is descended from the Peverell brother that had the invisibility cloak, and the Peverell brother that recieved the Resurrection stone handed it down through his family which went through Slytherin to Voldemort.Therefore they must related like distant cousins? :(Avatar Image says: Er, I don't think the Peverell brother who had the Stone had offspring, I mean the girl he loved was dead right?Avatar Image says: happy chappys, thought i was related to him for a second!Avatar Image says: I just finished reading "Harry, a History" - LOVED IT! I came to the Harry Potter world late and feel a little remorse for doing so after reading this book, but all that matters is that I finally caught on four years ago! Thank you Melissa for writing this book for those that did get a late start! Okay, sorry for the lovefest. I like DH versus Hollows of Hogwarts :). Avatar Image says: Is it me, or wouldn't that title have worked, since the hallows aren't from Hogwarts, nor are they all in Hogwarts? It'd have to be Hallows of Voldemort then. Weird...Avatar Image says: voldy: Harry is indeed a distant relative of Voldemort. Harry might or might not be some very distant cousin of Slytherin, because it is entirely possible that some descendant of Slytherin married some Peverell descendant thus relating Harry to Voldemort but not Slytherin.Avatar Image says: I came to the Harry books late, too. Also just finished "Harry, A History" and feel like my love of the books is so justified! My family doesn't get it, my friends don't get it, but so many out there do. Thanks, Melissa, for making me feel like part of something.Avatar Image says: Witchchylde: Actually Cadmus Peverall could have had descendants. It is only in the Beedle tale that the girl he was to marry died and we have no idea how close that is to the real events. Even in the tale there is nothing to say that he hadn't subsequently married someone else.Avatar Image says: Slytherin came after the Peverells. Harry might have came after a different lineage, not necessarily through the Peverell that ended up with Slytherin surname.Avatar Image says: My reaction to this piece of information is to ask how the Hallows were "of Hogwarts" at the early planning stage. In DH as published, there is no real connection between the Hallows and Hogwarts, so what was the link going to be? Were the Peveralls going to be the Founders originally for example?Avatar Image says: burningpumpkins: I don't think we know that. Slytherin could be before or after the Peveralls, either is possible, though I think it is more likely the Peveralls were after the Founders, since that Ignotus is buried in a town named after Godric Gryffindor.Avatar Image says: I find it very interesting that the Hallows of Hogwarts were once what the story was about and then "It changed completely." If the Hallows had all been items that belonged to the founders and with an extra one or two thrown in from Slytherin, it would have been a much tighter end to the story. The sudden appearance of the Peverell stuff really seemed to come out of left field. Much as I loved Deathly Hallows, I was disappointed by a couple of things in the story. The first is that it seemed like a shotgun fire of story elements that hadn't been seem in the first six books, while simultaneously "remembering" back to earlier events in a superficial way without tying them in firmly. And secondly, why on earth didn't Harry recall how Slughorm was getting along by borrowing peoples' houses while they were on holiday and get the heck out of that stupid tent? Avatar Image says: Eh... Hallows of Hogwarts isn't really accurate is it? Unless as someone else said the Hallows were originally going to be tied to Hogwarts/the Founders. Which actually would have been really cool!Avatar Image says: I'm sure the reason Harry didn't occupy a house has something to do with increased ministry surveillance of muggles during the deathly hallows year. Also, they had to use the tent because they needed to be mobile in order to find the Horcruxes and they couldn't stay in one place for so long due to the risk of getting caught. The longer you're at on location the high the risk is of somebody finding you.Avatar Image says: I agree with you, Dawna. Thanks, Melissa, that was a great book!Avatar Image says: I think "Deathly Hallows" was chosen to keep people thinking that Harry was going to die, right up until the book came out. Melissa, you're an excellent writer! I'd love to see you try your hand at fiction next. :-)Avatar Image says: I really enjoyed reading Harry-A History. Thank you. What I would really love to know is this: At the Harry, Carrie and Garp reading, Jo said she had had another idea for the title of book 7. What was it? Has she ever said?Avatar Image says: Hey voldy! yes they are related. if you think about how JKR said there were 1000 students in Hogwarts then the wizerding would is very small. plus Merope was pure-blood and so was James. it wouldn't suprise me.Avatar Image says: Uhm... I don't really like it. It's too trivial (it's that the right word?). And, emmy, you got the point. The Hallows aren't related to Hogwarts at all, so.. I can't think of a more right title than "The Deathly Hallows": they play a fundamental part in the book. I cried sooo much when Harry decides not to go and search for the Resurrection Stone, in the end. Harry's dilemma (search the Hallows or the Horcruxes) made me love, if possible, even more his character. Maybe I went a little off topic but I hope I explained well what I feel about the title of this seven, last book. (See, I can't say "last" without hoping it isn't the last one). Sorry if there are some grammar errors, I'm italian. Goodnight everybody!!Avatar Image says: Off-topic, i'm sorry. The Puzzle Pirates ad on top creates pop-up's... *sadface*Avatar Image says: i like DH better,hallows of hogwarts sounds too sissy and waaaaay to many h'sAvatar Image says: im glad she didnt call it that! they're not exactly hallows of HOGWARTS. i'm sure she'd never do it though. Avatar Image says: I HAS RESURECTED FROM THE DAED. I SHEALL KIELL YOU. (i no speall weall)Avatar Image says: When are we getting the full interview, anyway? Avatar Image says: @ Voldemort Voldemort isn't just 'dead'. Didn't you read the books?! :P ;)Avatar Image says: Just to show you how far back on Leaky the title "Hallows of Hogwarts" was posted: I had grown to believe it was one of the tracks on the Prisoner of Azkaban soundtrack. Incorrect, of course... but yesterday when I read this, I had to check the track list to make sure. So "The Hallows of Hogwarts" was obviously heavy on my mind the first couple of times I listened to the Azkaban soundtrack :)Avatar Image says: "im glad she didnt call it that! they’re not exactly hallows of HOGWARTS. i’m sure she’d never do it though." They would have been and she would have if she wrote it that way.Avatar Image says: "Hallows of Hogwarts" would have been OK also. It was in Hogwarts after all that the three Hallows where united and Harry was becomming "Master of Death". He had faced Death valiently in various ocassions since he was elven. And it was in Hogwarts also where the ·"Master of the most intentions to escape Death" Volemort found his well deserved end; and burn in hell divided in his eight parts, after having been killed eight times.Avatar Image says: Thanks Melissa for the info, its always fun to read your interview snippets. Avatar Image says: I've grown to accept the Deathly Hallows title - I'm agreeing with the conesus that Hallows of Hogwarts is Hway Htoo Hmany HHHHHH's - but for awhile I didn't even like that. I find the word "deathly" kind of awkward. But in light of it's potential replacement...Avatar Image says: i dont think that the peverells have anything to do with hogwarts. where did this notion come from?? voldy rules! Avatar Image says: In which case Rowling should have done a better job of foreshadowing the Elder Wand instead of seeming to throw it in at the last minute. This makes DH even more of a disappointment since she clearly had the Three Hallows planned from early on.Avatar Image says: @voldy: the Hogwarts founders thing comes from the bit where Tom is the heir of Slytherin. So, if Tom is the heir of Slytherin, but also related to the Peverells, then Slytherin, the Peverells, Voldemort, and Harry, are all, at the very least, distantly related (if only though marriage).Avatar Image says: @ Yoda the hobbit But Jo would never have written it like that (all hallows being in Hogwarts), because she's always known how the story would go. So she could've probably changed a lot (and has, probably), but where the hallows are stached is important, she must have known where they were hid from the start. So title not so good imo...Avatar Image says: To SarahD: I agree with you. In early television interviews JKR talked about how important it was for her to keep the story as she originally designed it and not to have it changed. But she states in her interview with Melissa that she changed it completely and seems to have moved away from the Hallows of Hogwarts, a very tight and clever story line with plenty of foreshadowing, to the Peverell stuff and the Elder Wand, which is not well integrated into the previous six books. I think the change may not have been a true improvement. Instead of drawing together all of the little bits and pieces she had layed out for us in the first six books, it seems DH started out in another direction and made superficial references to earlier events, without ever tying them into a brilliant, braided story. I hate to say it, but while I think DH is a well written book, I really don't think it was as good it it could have been in drawing together lose ends rather than throwing a whole bunch of new stuff out on the table. I do wonder why she abandoned the Hogwarts Hallows idea that she started with. I think it was a poor choice on JKR's part. I can't believe that the Tales of Beedle the Bard were planned from the beginning. There is no reference to them at all in earlier books, and there was so much opportunity to do so. I think she just took a left turn with DH and headed off into new territory. Not bad for a new book, but not so good for the final volume in a series.Avatar Image says: Let's not forget that the hallows *were* all at Hogwarts with Dumbledore, and returned there with Harry. She could've plausibly kept that title without a major rework; she just didn't want to because it didn't sound as effective as "Deathly Hallows" did. Also, let's not confuse the main plotline of Harry's story, which *was* planned from the beginning, with the Tales, which were not.Avatar Image says: What Jo said was that the last third of DH was pretty much as she had planned it. That probably means from Gringotts onwards, and is the main action of the book. By that point all the back story of the Hallows had been established, including that they were "of Peveralls" not "of Hogwarts", so it would have made very little difference to that section if the Hallows had a different back story. As for foreshadowing, a lot of the things in DH can't be foreshadowed because it would give too much away. Though actually, all three of the Hallows are in earlier books, so are foreshadowed to some extent.Avatar Image says: @ Remus Lonno The objects that housed the horcruxes are hallows, by definition of "hallows" as objects with special powers or characteristics, just as the wand and cloak could be. I think my assumption was that the original title, "The Hallows of Hogwarts" would have very nicely fit the all important horcrux objects (the first set of hallows we are introduced to in the first six books) instead of the special wand, the ring and cloak, which were not horcrux objects but were grouped togther as a second set of hallowed items. The emphasis on finding the six horcruxes, entombed in their individual hallows, with Harry being an unknowing seventh horcrux, makes for a far more engaging melding of the initial six books into the seventh and last. But there are quite a few changes throughout the books that have intrinsically changed what could have been. An intriguing one is Grindelwald. In an earlier interview, JKR is asked if Grindlewald is dead and she says, yes, definitely dead. But then he is resurrected for a cameo scene in Book 7 (which really didn't add much to the story beyond showing that he still lived). Why the change? I wish I felt otherwise, but I really sense that JKR changed routes after Book 6 and headed in a new direction for Book 7. Maybe she had lots more left in her imagination that she wanted to work with before finishing the series. Who knows. But so many new things in Book 7 were not foreshadowed and this differed dramatically from the preceeding six books. In Harry, A History, Melissa talks about the joy in discovering, while reading through the first few books, that the story really was continous and connected. That was a great strength to the series. Book 7 sort of fell off the wagon on that count. Even the characters changed. One of the really fun things in the earlier books was how the threesome cleverly used their wits and knowledge to cope with things. In Book 7 they were sad, barely coping, and just not themselves. Hermione, who always knew something brilliant and useful, put together the ten-ton purse and threw everything into it, but she didn't wow us (as she usually did in the past) with wonderful knowledge and an ability to bail them all out through that knowledge. Harry, in previous books, was inventive and resourceful, yet he seemed to have completely forgotten about how Slughorn got by by "borrowing" houses and they struggled on in that miserable tent for so long that I had to put the book down a few times waiting for them to come to their senses. But they didn't. They just moped on. All in all, DH felt different, depressed the ability of the main characters, missed opportunities to weave in past material, and added a truck load of new stuff that was OK, but not stellar and was completely missed in the previous style of foeshadowing and "Aha!" moments. It almost felt, at time, as though it was by a different author. Very intelligent and well plotted out, but the humor and surprise were gone. It just plodded along through months of tenting and asking, over and over again, what would the six horcruxes be, when what was really important were the brand new three Peverell "hallows." I used to always think that a great weakness of the movies was that the plot line was a single thread that pulled you along from start to end. And the books were always stopping and starting in a miraculous way that jolted you and surprised you. But Book 7 was more like the movie scripts. It just plodded along from point A to point B to point C in a linear fashion. I still think the Hallows of Hogwarts were the hallowed items from each of the four founders: Slytherin - the locket, Hufflepuff - the cup, something from Ravenclaw - perhaps the one lone wand on the purple pillow at Ollivander's?, and something from Gryffindor - possibly the sword?; Voldemort's diary, Voldemort's snake or the Peverell ring, and ! surprise ! Harry as an unintended number seven. I always thought that the invisibility cloak was like the Marauder's Map and Sirius's mirror, something of great use to Harry, a tool, but not something that was key in Dumbledore's life or Voldemort's either. I think JKR changed her mid about this and deviated from her original plan greatly at the end. Wish she hadn't. Avatar Image says: "Hallows at Hogwarts" sweet! It sounds like all pure bloods have married first or second cousins so that makes all pure bloods related to one another. Isn't that why many have become so mean and wierd over the years. Look at the Gaunts for crying out loud! I did like "Hallows at Hogwarts" thou. Both titles would have worked.Avatar Image says: weird i could see it either way on the titles. but why hogwarts i can see why of course because they came from hogwarts original teacher. wow!!!!!!!!Avatar Image says: I just finished reading it today.OMG!!! It is fabulous!!!Avatar Image says: Awesome! Deathly Hallows is waaaay cooler, though. Imho.Avatar Image says: jmas1357: You seem to be suggesting that originally, the hallows were the horcruxes, and that's intriguing. I like that they're separate though, and that there was a choice to be made between the two. I am happy not to share your disappointment, though. In the end, the story is the story, and details like the hallows and the horcruxes are simply that, details. What I like about the story as a whole is not that it's unique and special -- which it is -- but that it draws on a rich tradition of popular fiction, and stays true to that tradition, literally, to the end. So what you don't like about it is precisely what I like about it. And I'm cool with that, if you are. Avatar Image says: Remus Loono: I see what you're saying. And I can certainly see why you like the books. I do think, though, that the hallows and horcruxes are more than details. If you follow the books from the first: We learn in Book One that Harry has managed to avoid death and that Voldemort has managed to avoid death. This is major. Harry does it accidentally but Voldemort (V) does it on purpose. This is the axis on which the stories spin. And for several books, we don't know why this has happened. Only Dumbledore (D) has a working theory about how this is possible. And he does not, for a minute, suspect that there are Peverell Deathly Hallows involved. D is our inside voice in the stories, the character who knows everything. He make make a mistake of the heart, but not a mistake regarding facts and information, as JKR has set things up. D and Hermione are never wrong. Hary and Ron are from time to time, Ron with quite a bit more regularity than Harry, but D and Hermione are not mistaken about factual things in the seven books. Dumbledore suspects horcruxes. D clearly knows what a horcrux is and how they work. At the very least he removed the books that describe them from the school library. He may know more about them or have had some previous experience with them - he's 150 years old and very knowledgable. But he's dead on sure that V is alive or non-dead because of horcruxes. The horcruxes will keep V's soul alive with or without a body. So now he needs a body. In Book One (Philosopher's Stone) Harry manages to keep the means to returning to a body (the stone) from V and then it is destroyed. One option gone for V's physical return. His soul is still floating around out there, waiting. In Book Two (Chamber) we see the first horcrux, the diary, though it isn't yet called that yet, and Harry manages to destroy it. Another option gone for V's physical return. In Book Three (Azkaban) Wormtail returns to V and begins the process of providing him with assistance in getting a body back. No horcrux or stone here, but now V has help. The second prophecy lets us know that V is now on his way back. In Book Four (Goblet) V finally gets to return to corporal form. He's on his way now. He inadvertently provides Harry with his own horcrux-like powers by using Harry's blood to regenerate, but he's back and believes he has plenty of horcruxes out there to protect him if he is bodily killed again. In Book Five (Order) and Book Six (Prince) Dumbledore lays out his theory to Harry that Voldemort has made horcruxes to protect himself from death. Dumbledore believes that the first was made with the Peverell ring when V killed his Muggle father and grandparents at age 16. The second was made while V was a student (the diary) at Hogwarts at age 17. And at this time V asks Slughorn if it is possible to make as many as six seperate horcruxes, to divide the soul into seven parts, for extra strong proection against death. So now we are certain that there would be as many as six separate horcruxes created. Then V graduates and goes to work for Borgin and Burkes. What was that all about? Selling stuff in a shop? Well, D believes that V was after four special objects, one each from each of the Hogwarts founders, to use as containers, or hallows as it were, for his remaining four horcruxes (which would give him the six he wanted). Borgin & Burkes would be the natural place to connect with dark objects, that's what the shop was all about. V gets the Hufflepuff Cup and the Slytherin locket from the old, pink, fat lady and now has only two more to obtain. D believes that V interviews for the teaching post at Hogewarts to get a third and/or fourth relic (or hallow), but doesn't manage to obtain it. Possibly the sword of Gryffindor? So at this point, at the end of Book 6, we have been painstakingly led along the path to needing to know what and where the remaining Hogwarts founder's-related horcruxes are so that Harry can destroy them and effectively void V's life insurance policy of horcruxes. We got into Book 7 with this very elegant, complex chess board of carefully placed pieces on the table, the development of the horcrux theory and all of the memories that support it, and then kaboom, JKR sweeps her arm across the chess board knocking all of the pieces to the floor and virtually says, "OK, forget about chess, we're going to play checkers now" and places a few new tokens on the board: the hallows from the newly created tale of Beedle the Bard about the three Peverell brothers. Why? What was the point of building the groundwork so carefully to just drop it? To virtually start again? Why drop the ball? The diary was destroyed and the ring was destroyed, the first and second horcrux objects. All that remained to be found were the four hallowed objects of Hogwarts founders that contained the remaining four horcruxes. If the story were to follow it's logical path, Book 7 would have been Harry Potter and the Hallows of Hogwarts, in which we would need to identify and track down the remaining four horcruxes, each lodged in a hallowed Hogwarts founder's belonging. The horcruxes were not just details, they were the path to follow throughout the previous six books. Then they were shunted aside. Really odd if you think about it. They just became an annoying thorn in Harry's life and sucked up a huge part of Year 7. I find it more than interesting that Hallows of Hogwarts was the working title for years and "It all changed" as JKR says, and the Peverell story was introduced. What was the benefit? The loss was substantial, I think. So much planning and groundwork. And then, poof, it was pushed aside. I guess I just don't understand it. Maybe that's what bugs me. There doesn't seem to be a reason. You see what I mean? Avatar Image says: jmas1357: I do see what you mean. Again, what dissapointed you is what I liked about it. You're putting entirely too much importance on the horcruxes. The HOrcruxes: Voldemort creates 6 terrible objects that are the key to his survival. In HBP, Harry discovers the truth of this for the first time, then loses Dumbledore. At that point, you're right, the logical path is to track down the remaining four horcruxes and destroy them. Now here's the part that I like. Dumbledore believed Voldemort would make four horcruxes out of things belonging to the Hogwarts founders, and Voldemort did try to. But he failed. So much for his grand plans to mock the founders. The best laid plans of mice and gits etc., etc. The thing is, that's all Voldemort's story. Harry's story is about *how he discovers his part in Voldemort's plan to make himself immortal, and stops it.* That elegant, complex chessboard of carefully placed pieces on the table? Voldemort. Horcruxes? Hallows? Details. JKR's arm sweeping the chessmen away and replacing them with checkers? Harry. Years ago, here on the comments, we had some fun with the fact that Harry didn't even need to be a wizard, he could've been a potato farmer, or a chocolatier. The story would still have worked. Avatar Image says: Remus Lonno: Wow. I see your point of view. I just wasn't making the jump from Voldemort's story in the first six books to Harry's in the final book. Thanks for the insight!Avatar Image says: why didn't you put more of these tidbits in the book?Avatar Image says: Remus Lonno: One last thought (because I keep thinking about this), the story is a good story, but what makes for a good novel is details. Details, details, details. It's like that saying about real estate: location, location, location. The manufactured terrace house at Number 4 Privet Drive is a house (story) just as the Shell Cottage is a house (story). What makes one more appealing than the other? The details. A story is a story, but it's in the telling that we have a good book or a great one. A good story line can make a poor, fair, good or excellent novel. It's choosing which themes and words are used and which are not that makes for the quality of the book. The story stays the same. Harry could be a potato farmer or a chocolatier, but which would be the better novel? The enduring piece of literature? Which would just be another in the genre of adventure/coming of age stories? You could edit out the Deathly Hallows fable (which, incidentally, is about cheating death and is once again Voldemort's story rather than Harry's) and the book would be a better written book. Kind of like taking Jar Jar Binks out of Star Wars. The fable is weak, unnecessary and bogs down the progression of the storyline. Harry’s storyline. The fable of the deathly hallows is about three brothers who don't want to die. That's Voldemort. Two of the brothers die trying to cheat death, and the third succeeds by, wait for it, HIDING UNDER A CLOAK FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE! Sounds a lot like hiding in an invisible tent for a year to me. Not a lot of fun was it? Not a great life. Might as well have died crossing the bridge. Where is the courage of Gryffindor in this fable? This is a coward's success. This is Voldemort. Dumbledore tells us in the first book that death is merely the next step in a well organized life. What would his fascination be with the three hallows? What exactly about these three supposedly death-defying objects would be so compelling for him? Not the invisibility cloak. He doesn't even need such a simple item, he can disappear without carting around a big cape. The resurrection stone? It doesn't do what it was supposed to do. It doesn't raise the dead; it merely drags them back to ghostly form and makes them miserable. The Elder Wand, the third item, was used in battle to defeat others and get your way through violence and force? Does that sound like Dumbledore? Not to me. Removing the deathly hallows bit from the saga eliminates 100 pages of going nowhere with Harry's storyline, and restores Dumbledore to the brilliant character who, in the first book, appreciated abstract concepts such as music and words (nitwit, oddment, etc.) instead of someone who almost ruins his life trying to collect tchotchkes from a flawed old fable. I think the introduction of the deathly hallows fable and items was a huge literary mistake. A detail that went wrong. Look at where we would be without the weight of the added fable and three new objects: Hermione wouldn't have to get the book when Dumbledore died. Which means that Ron wouldn’t have needed a gift to round things out. Then the elegant Puter-Outer, which collects light and then returns it -- what a fabulous concept -- wouldn't have had to also function as a GPS and radio (what next? corkscrew/fish descaler/magnifying glass?) and Ron wouldn't spend hours sitting around clicking the thing on and off, getting nowhere, and annoying everyone. No story progression here. It would have been a loads better book if the threesome were borrowing empty houses as Slughorn did and Ron kept walking around picking up random Muggle objects saying, “OK, could this be a horcrux? No? What about this?” And Harry wouldn't be stuck getting the resurrection stone and the Peverell broken ring inside the golden snitch. The resurrection stone is the booby prize in the three deathly hallows -- it doesn't even work. It was meant to bring back the dead but all it does is pull the dead back to a miserable ghostly form. You'd be better off with a talking portrait. At least then the departed person wouldn't be miserable and resentful. No, without the three hallows from the newly added fable, Harry could get something that related to his story, Harry's story, in the golden snitch. The resurrection stone isn't what he wanted. He doesn't want to make his parents and friends miserable by turning them into ghosts and chaining them to an earthly existence. Imagine this: Harry is given the golden snitch when Dumbledore dies. That's it. No other mementos to confuse and complicate things. Just the snitch, and there is something locked inside that is revealed at the close (the end) after he and his friends discover and destroy the four Hogwarts hallows that contain the remaining four horcruxes. If this is Harry's story it should be about Harry's conflict, his chosen path. (Quick digression: In ancient times, the calendar moved in a circle, following the seasons and natural life on earth. The end became the beginning. The beginning followed the end. Which came first? Spring or summer? Or was it winter? Life was thought to be cyclical. Hold that thought.) If I could have whispered in JKR's ear while she was writing Book 7, I would have suggested that the snitch contain something that forces Harry to make a choice, a true choice ("It is your choices, Harry, that make you who you are"). That final choice is between saving himself while killing Voldemort OR sacrificing himself to save the others. The resurrection stone doesn’t have any true usefulness here. It’s superfluous. OK, back to the snitch. Harry presses the snitch to his lips; it opens, and inside there is a small, round sparkling vial of ruby-red Elixir of Life, the last existing drops, given to Dumbledore by his good friend Nicholas Flamel before he died. And Harry's choice is made concrete. He can drink the elixir and not be killed by Voldemort . He would be able to kill Nagini and then Voldemort OR he can "want the stone but not use it" and walk forward to his death in order to save the others. And in that same moment in which he opens the snitch and sees the elixir, he knows that Dumbledore did love him. That love is the lasting power. And that Dumbledore could have used this precious liquid for himself but sacrificed himself and saved the elixir for Harry. The climax of the seven books is here. Love. Harry’s parents loved and died for him. Sirius loved and died in Harry’s cause. And now we know the same is true of Dumbledore. He couldn’t tell Harry about the prophecy and Harry’s horrible future because he loved Harry and now he shows this love again. We would have left the series with Dumbledore as a pillar of integrity and wisdom (how satisfying that would have been!). And we would also move to the epilogue with Harry in possession of the Elixir of Life. Book 7 would end where Book 1 began. The magic would move forward to the next generation. Possibilities for what comes in the future are now endless. It's not just putting your kids on the bus (train) for school and living what looks like a very Muggle-like life. There's more to it. There's more potential. More to come... Details. All just details, of course. Same story. But what a difference the details could make in the telling of the story and the quality of the novel. Avatar Image says: Wow man... let it go alreadyAvatar Image says: Thanks for writing your book Melissa, my husband bought it for me for Christmas, and I have been glued to it almost as much as the Harry Potter books. I didn't know that these fan sites existed until I read it. Thanks again.Avatar Image says: jmas1357: I see you're still dissapointed in what I enjoyed. I'm fine with Dumbledore and Harry as flawed humans, and the closure in book 7. The point of the Hallows was another test of character, to offer Harry invincibility. And he did just fine without being invincible. Give him invincibility and immortality, and where would that leave us who aspire to be like him? Excluded, out in the cold, staring at another larger-than-life superhero. Meh. Underdogs rule, superheroes drool.Avatar Image says: Ha! Harry Potter and Dumbledore's Revenge, how mental would that book of been, also loving the march of death eaters/march of the penguins style title, perhaps Morgan Freeman could have done the last audiobookAvatar Image says: The book kind of started out slow for me but the more you read the better it gets. Especially in the ending chapters. It is amazing how you M.A. Whent from never reading a book untill in college to all this. Way to go makes me feel like not such a geek at 31 and loving Harry Potter. Believe it of not I do not have the first few books But will soon. Keep up all the hard work!!!!Avatar Image says: Back in late 2006, when we learned that the difference between the two titles Jo was trying to decide between was 'two consonants and a vowel' I suggested that if we took her statement literally, we might be able to work out what the two titles might be. A month or so later, we were given the title she had decided upon: Deathly Hallows. It appears that I was right to suggest we attempt investigating the possibilities. Deathly Hallows = 10 consonants/4 vowels Hallows of Hogwarts = 12 consonants/5 vowels The difference = two consonants and one vowel Avatar Image says: I don't quite understand why the title might have been Hallows of Hogwarts since the Hallows don't have much to do with Hogwarts. I'm happy with Deathly Hallows.Avatar ImageGarden State Geek says: Hallows of Hogwarts does not grab my attention as much as Deathly Hallows does. The word "Deathly" sounds far more compelling. Avatar ImageRevolution365 says: Are the Peveralls the founders of Hogwarts or something? I don't see how it's linked except that the Peveralls may have went to Hogwarts

Write a Reply or Comment

Finding Hogwarts

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.