I just re-read the last book and it had me wondering? What was the point of the Deathly Hallows? When I read it the first time I assumed they made Harry survive, because he united them, but what really kept him alive was his protected blood in Voldemort's veins. As I read it the Deathly Hallows didn't do anything. I know they are used as tools to show how you cannot make people come back from death and things like that, but couldn't they just have have been removed from the books without harming the essentiel plot. It doesn't seem like J.K. Rowling to not have had left any traces of them in the first books. I know the ring is mentioned, but then again... not really. The Hallows could be perceived to be a bit forced into the last book because of a sudden idea, so prove me wrong, please. I know there must be an explanation.
Ah, but remember, after Voldemort AK'd him in the woods and he had the King's Cross interlude, it was the Elder Wand's loyalty to Harry that ultimately caused Voldemort's spell to backfire and kill him. The stone made Harry's parents, Sirius and Lupin appear to guide him through the woods, and the cloak helped him move around the battle unseen. So I'd say they served a purpose. Becoming master of the three Hallows doesn't necessarily mean that you're "immortal." In Rowling's view, the true master of death (and the master of the Hallows) is the person who understands that death is inevitable. The true master of death accepts it; they don't run from it. So it's significant that Harry went into the Forbidden Forest as master of all of the Hallows, because he went into the woods knowing that he was going to die, and accepting it.
And at least two of the Hallows — the wand and the cloak — were in plain sight, if not mentioned by name as Hallows, since the very first book. Just because she didn't wave a banner saying, "These are two of the Hallows!" doesn't mean that they weren't such. I know they played a role, but they did that separately. They did not have to be united and Harry came to the realisation about being the master of death without them. The fact that he was master of all the hallows didn't do anything for him, did it? Actionwise for want of a better word. I realise that there is a symbolic meaning but couldn't that have been reached without them.
I'm not trying to criticise J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter. They are some of my favourite books. Reading them again just had me thinking.
The part of Voldemort's death didn't seem all that clear to me either. I usually get to that part after I have kept myself up longer than I should which means I'm somewhat tired, maybe that is the reason, but Harry's way of survival shouldn't be based upon whether he or not he was the owner of the Elder Wand? It was not Dumbledore's intention for Harry to have it, was it? He wanted Snape to end up with it and surely he didn't hope that Harry would conquer Snape when he was on their side. No matter what wouldn't the spell have backfired? Because of Lily's protection.
But if Harry hadn't united them and become master of them, how would he have come to that realization? And maybe they didn't factor in much "action-wise," but sometimes symbolism has more meaning than action. I was under the impression that Lily's protection actually ended when Harry came of age — that's why he had to leave the Dursleys as soon as possible, because the house no longer held that protection. What kept Harry from dying when Voldemort AK'd him in the woods was the fact that they were linked via the horcrux within Harry, and because Harry willingly laid down his life for the sake of everyone else. When Voldemort AK'd him, that horcrux was destroyed (as evidenced in the King's Cross chapter) and theoretically, Voldemort could have killed Harry after the fact, because they were no longer linked by the horcrux. That's why it was so important for Harry to actually be the Elder Wand master, because that's ultimately what ended Voldemort: the spell backfiring on him.
But if Lily's protection ended which was stated in the books that it did, like you say, then Harry shouldn't have been able to come back to life? Harry could choose to come back because Voldemort had taken his protected blood and tied them together, wasn't that the only reason he could come back. But laying down your life for everyone eles's sake shouldn't keep you alive, because Lily died and that was what she did. I can see you point about the horcrux, but it was my impression that it was the blood that kept Harry alive. I'd have though that killing the horcrux would have killed the person, too, this might not be an all too valid example, but the snake died, and all the other horcruxes were destroyed along with the objects that contained them. Why should Harry's body be spared when obviously the horcruxes hurt the things in which they were contained?
I don't underestimate symbolism but I thought that the Hallows might have had a more palpaple function in regards to surviving. This is why you need to reread it when you're in a lucid frame of mind. This is something that Harry asks Dumbledore in the King's Cross chapter. Some of it might actually be down to Harry being the master of all of the Hallows — the true master of death accepts that he must die. That's what separates Harry willing to lay down his life from Lily willing to lay down hers. It's not enough to be the master of the Hallows. That's kind of their "trick."
From Deathly Hallows:
Harry: "But I should have died! I meant to let him kill me!"
Dumbledore: "And that will, I think, have made all the difference."
This is an explicit indication that Harry's willingness to die is what saved him. Dumbledore does mention Lily's blood in both of them, but I'd honestly call this something of an error — if sharing Lily's protection by blood was enough to tether them together after Harry turned 17, then the protection of the Dursleys shouldn't have ended. But it also wasn't just Lily's blood; it was also the fact that Harry was a horcrux.
Dumbledore also mentions the Hallows, but notes that he sought them to actually cheat death whereas Harry sought them and ended up laying down his life, which is the whole point.
Dumbledore: "You are the true master of death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying."
Basically, everything's explained in the King's Cross chapter better than I could explain it here.
It wasn't his willingness directly that saved him. IT might have soemthing to do with it in some manner that bit was a bit confusing. But basically he survived becausethe AK spell destroyed the piece of Voldemort's soul in him not his own soul. Also since Voldemort used his blood to be resurrected he has a part of Harry in him as well which was essentially like Harry having his own horcrux in a manner since part of him was living through Voldemort so as long as he was alive Harry couldn't truly die either. I think that might be where the 'master of death' thing comes in. All the horcrux containers were destroyed (including nagini), but maybe Harry wasn't killed because of his willingness to die (AKA- truly being master of death).
Or, having the same blood allowed Harry to share in Voldemort's horcrux. As long as he had that horcrux, he wouldn't die because of Voldemort sharing his blood. I'm not talking about the blood's protection now, I'm just talking about sharing blood. How that works is confusing because she never goes into great detail on much of the intricacies of how horcruxes operate. If the person's horcrux is inside you and you share the same exact blood, maybe that could mean something in terms of whether they can kill you or not?
Also, Lily's protection ended when harry turned 17, but Voldemort and Harry still share that special blood. The wards around privet drive went down, yes, but maybe there was still some sort of effect preventing someone with that blood from killing Harry.
Anyway, this is all speculation but I hope this helps a bit.
Watch Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows online
