Discussion: The Deathly Hallows

[merrymarge]

Why would you need someone to make an unbreakable Vow to bring you back to a half-life?
The stone only brings someone back from the dead, but they aren't truly alive.

[SlyEd]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

Why would you need someone to make an unbreakable Vow to bring you back to a half-life?
The stone only brings someone back from the dead, but they aren't truly alive.

Well it brings you to a half-life, witch sounds better to me than no-life at all. Plus it's not like you come back as a ghost, story of 3 brothers says the women got back almost compleatly as she wore before but unhappy for some reason. Doesn't mean everyone would be unhappy with that kind of existing.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by SlyEd

Well it brings you to a half-life, witch sounds better to me than no-life at all. Plus it's not like you come back as a ghost, story of 3 brothers says the women got back almost compleatly as she wore before but unhappy for some reason. Doesn't mean everyone would be unhappy with that kind of existing.

Probably the reason the woman wasn't happy was because she wasn't really alive. Perhaps she was even happy at whatever place she was when she was called back by the resurrection stone.

-eta-

Meanwhile, the second brother journeyed to his own home, where he lived alone. Here he took out the stone that had the power to recall the dead, and turned it thrice in his hand. To his amazement and his delight, the figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry, before her untimely death, appeared at once before him.

Yet she was sad and cold, separated from him as by a veil. Though she had returned to the mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered. Finally the second brother, driven mad with hopeless longing, killed himself so as truly to join her. The Tale of the Three Brothers, pages 91-92

That doesn't sound like anything I'd want to put a deceased loved one through . . .

[abl385]

As Dumbledore says, and as seems to be supported by the events of the books there is no spell that can truly wake the dead. We see what the stone really does when Harry uses it for his March to the forest. That being said if used the correctly and not abused the stone could prove to be a pleasant tool to discuss things with the deceased that were not previously discussed. A useful tool to solve murder mysteries.

But yes no one can really be brought back from the dead. Only a pale imitation.

[merrymarge]

I like the Deathly Hallows. they provided a nice twist to the story. I am glad that Harry returned the wand to Dumbledore. Could the magic of the Elder wand really be broken? Couldn't someone else steal it from Dumbledore's tomb and use it? They wouldn't know it was Harry's wand, they would just want to see if it was the Elder wand? I am just guessing.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

So... How big was the ressurection stone? I always thought it was fairly small, though it is described as a large stone set in a gold ring - to me that doesn't suggest that it's much bigger than a large marble (maybe 3/4" in diameter) but later in DH it seems like it's bigger...

Also, I assume it had to be shaped in order to be set into a ring - you don't just pull a hunk of diamond out of the ground and make it into a ring, you grind into a nice shape first. It also had the mark of the hallows carved into it. I wonder if the dust from grinding could have been used to summon people back from the dead? Or if it could have been broken in two and there would be two ressurection stones?

And thus ends my random thursday.

I'd guess it was only large relative to being set in a ring. And as far as the shape of the stone, it was likely cut before the spell was set upon it to "resurrect" the dead.

It's an interesting thought, though, as to whether if split in two, each would function properly. We do see it still works even though it's cracked. Maybe the spell is permeated throughout the stone?

[SlyEd]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

Probably the reason the woman wasn't happy was because she wasn't really alive. Perhaps she was even happy at whatever place she was when she was called back by the resurrection stone.

-eta-



That doesn't sound like anything I'd want to put a deceased loved one through . . .

Yes, but i think we focus on the woman from the sotry too much. How about all the people that came to harry when he had the stone? They didint seem sad but quite happy to come back and see him and also he was happy to have them around. All im saying is that perhaps not everyone who came back would have the same reaction as the woman from the 3 brothers tale.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by SlyEd

Yes, but i think we focus on the woman from the sotry too much. How about all the people that came to harry when he had the stone? They didint seem sad but quite happy to come back and see him and also he was happy to have them around. All im saying is that perhaps not everyone who came back would have the same reaction as the woman from the 3 brothers tale.

I think the difference is that Cadmus attempted to more or less enslave his deceased love in the real world, where she did not belong. Harry, on the other hand, used his 'resurrected' loved ones to give him momentary strength and reassurance; he never had the intention to keep them around and attempt to live a worldly life with them.

[horcrux4]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

I like the Deathly Hallows. they provided a nice twist to the story. I am glad that Harry returned the wand to Dumbledore. Could the magic of the Elder wand really be broken? Couldn't someone else steal it from Dumbledore's tomb and use it? They wouldn't know it was Harry's wand, they would just want to see if it was the Elder wand? I am just guessing.

I assume that if someone took the wand from Dumbledore's tomb they'd have the same problem with it that Voldemort did - that they wouldn't be the master of it because they'd not defeated its previous master, in this case Harry. Harry told the wizarding world that he was master of the Elder Wand in his final battle with Voldemort, but someone who wanted it would have had to find it first and Harry didn't tell anyone but Dumbledore's portrait where he was putting it, and that obliquely so even Ron and Hermione couldn't be sure. On the other hand since Voldemort announced in the final battle that he had taken it from Dumbledore's dead hands that might well be where an Elder Wand hunter might start. I think it would have been wiser for Harry to have hidden it in a new place.

[EXPELIAMUS]

Super glue the resurrection stone onto the elder wand, then wrap the elder wand inside the invisibility cloak, and finally attach two ropes from it to Buckbeak so it acts as a hand rest when riding the ultimate hippogriff.

Unless of course throwing random stuff into Harry's vault would suffice. Verbally password protect it with the code "cupboard". This way, the answer is so personal only Harry would have access to it, thus preventing potential polyjuice lovers from entering it.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by SlyEd

Well it brings you to a half-life, witch sounds better to me than no-life at all. Plus it's not like you come back as a ghost, story of 3 brothers says the women got back almost compleatly as she wore before but unhappy for some reason. Doesn't mean everyone would be unhappy with that kind of existing.

Spoken like a true Slytherin

I'm sure someone like, say, Voldemort wouldn't object to coming back via the resurrection stone. That's a scary thought, isn't it?

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Spoken like a true Slytherin

I'm sure someone like, say, Voldemort wouldn't object to coming back via the resurrection stone. That's a scary thought, isn't it?

But is it a permanent return? Somehow I don't think so. And the permanence would depend on the person in possession of the stone.When Harry threw away the stone his parents disappeared.

I suppose if one were in Hell, a half-life would be better!

[SlyEd]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

But is it a permanent return? Somehow I don't think so. And the permanence would depend on the person in possession of the stone.When Harry threw away the stone his parents disappeared.

I suppose if one were in Hell, a half-life would be better!

It's not permanent, like you said, it depends on the person who has the stone. But like i said before, if you somehow made an unbreakable vow with this person you intend to leave the stone, that person will feel obligated to bring you back or he/she will die. So,if for some reason you fear death, you can try to make better odds to get back, even to a half-life.
It's just my opinion, i would choose the stone over other hallows any time.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by SlyEd

It's not permanent, like you said, it depends on the person who has the stone. But like i said before, if you somehow made an unbreakable vow with this person you intend to leave the stone, that person will feel obligated to bring you back or he/she will die. So,if for some reason you fear death, you can try to make better odds to get back, even to a half-life.
It's just my opinion, i would choose the stone over other hallows any time.

Not me, Invisible Cloak! Not to hide from Death, however.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

But is it a permanent return? Somehow I don't think so. And the permanence would depend on the person in possession of the stone.When Harry threw away the stone his parents disappeared.

I suppose if one were in Hell, a half-life would be better!

No, the resurrection stone does not mean that Voldemort would be back permenantly, but once he was back in his half-life he would conceivably go about determining how to make his return permenant.

[SlyEd]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

No, the resurrection stone does not mean that Voldemort would be back permenantly, but once he was back in his half-life he would conceivably go about determining how to make his return permenant.

I agree with this. Voldemort was once in that "half-life" condition when he desperately wanted Philosopher's Stone and he planed to get to life and somehow did, fully. So i guess if someone would bring him back with the stone, he would probably start planing how to get back to the full life.
And who knows, with propper fallowers he might just do it

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by SlyEd

I agree with this. Voldemort was once in that "half-life" condition when he desperately wanted Philosopher's Stone and he planed to get to life and somehow did, fully. So i guess if someone would bring him back with the stone, he would probably start planing how to get back to the full life.
And who knows, with propper fallowers he might just do it

I could see Bellatrix doing this if she ever got her hands on the stone. And, you know, wasn't dead.

[merrymarge]

Dudley thanked Harry for saving his life from the dementors. Harry said that he didn't save Dudley's life because the dementors wanted Dudley's soul. if they did take Big D's soul, would he still be a person? We know Voldemort had a bit of a soul, but no body, but if Dudley lost his soul to the dementors, he would have a body.
I hope someone can explain. I think Harry did save Dudley's life.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

Dudley thanked Harry for saving his life from the dementors. Harry said that he didn't save Dudley's life because the dementors wanted Dudley's soul. if they did take Big D's soul, would he still be a person? We know Voldemort had a bit of a soul, but no body, but if Dudley lost his soul to the dementors, he would have a body.
I hope someone can explain. I think Harry did save Dudley's life.

It is hard for me to wrap my brain around (hurts a little too!!) but I guess the person is still alive, perhaps like a person in a coma. Voldemort was vaporized because his AK rebounded on him so it wouldn't be the same as having one's soul sucked out by a dementor.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

Dudley thanked Harry for saving his life from the dementors. Harry said that he didn't save Dudley's life because the dementors wanted Dudley's soul. if they did take Big D's soul, would he still be a person? We know Voldemort had a bit of a soul, but no body, but if Dudley lost his soul to the dementors, he would have a body.
I hope someone can explain. I think Harry did save Dudley's life.

Isn't it described like having your soul sucked out of you leaves just a shell of a human behind? I didn't think you would go into a coma or anything, I thought of it more like you were alive and able to move around, eat, sleep and whatever but that you were completely devoid of personality and conscience.

I guess I kind of thought of a person with their soul sucked out being sort of a living zombie creature, a full on humanoid animal who does nothing but follow it baser insticts without regard for feeling or emotion because they themselves are no longer capable of emotion or complex, problem-solving throughts. For instance, a soul-sucked person would kill for two reasons: to eat or to prevent themselves from being eaten. They would likely see other humans as threats, either personally or to percieved territory. They would only probably be capable of four things really: they would eat, they would sleep, the would deficate, they would procreate, all of which are natural urges or are driven by instinct. They would be human only in physical appearance but not in mental capacity; they would be the absolute baseline of what a solely (no pun intended, ) instinct-driven human being would be like. Because of their desire to follow their natural insticts they would have to be considered dangerous and would likely have to be institutionalized either in a solitary-confinement kind of hospital or in some kind of prison facility where they could be kept separated from the general population for their own sake and the safety of others.

At least that's how I imagined them to be. Scary thought, really...