But didn't Dumbledore place a kind of immobilizing spell on Harry in the tower? If he could do that surely he could have overcome Draco Malfoy, even in a weakened state. However, even if he would have lost, he didn't try to fight - he cast the immobilizing spell rather than a shield charm or what have you. Therefore Dumbledore chose not to fight too.

 

He didn't plan on "letting" Draco disarm him - the plan was to let Snape kill him straight out. I doubt the thought process running through his head was "Oh, well, I'm not resisting because I'm insuring Harry's safety."

 

Dumbledore I think was trying to break the power of the Elder Wand by a willing death. Draco disarming Dumbledore before that was a snag in his plan.

 

The narrative particularly highlights that Dumbledore was going to defend himself, but that he prioritised Harry over himself:

Obviously Dumbledore at his height would not be so easily overcome, but he was barely coherent at this point.

 

No one commented on the harem of Dementors kissing Voldemort's wand?

 

I don't see how that quote undermines my argument. Dumbledore in the tower, in the small window of time he had available, chose to protect another via sacrificing himself. Harry in the forest, in the small window of time he had available, chose to protect others via sacrificing himself. I agree Taure that Dumbledore at his height would not have had to make the decision, so maybe that counts as being "defeated", but surely if Harry had access to a mega-Time Turner that let him go through 10 years of classic Indy!Harry training in an minute he might have been able to match Voldemort? But Harry didn't have such a ridiculous device, and Dumbledore didn't have time to recuperate, and they both made their choices to sacrifice themselves under duress. I would argue that Voldemort maneuvered Harry into a desperate situation just as much as Malfoy did Dumbledore.

I see your point however, and its not a big deal anyways - just something that nagged at me when I reread it.

 

The difference is intent: Dumbledore didn't get the result he wanted. He intended to defeat Draco and failed. Harry intended to go in there and die.

 

Here's a question - why exactly was Harry able to return from the dead. I thought at first it was just because the Horcrux was destroyed and as such, only one had to go on - an idea that's been played out in fanfiction time and again, though isn't canon.

But after rereading the section at Kings Cross after Harry was hit by the curse, there were at least three other options that came up.

(1) being discussed already, Harry didn't fight. I know it's being discussed in relation to the wand, but it almost seems in context that it's in relation to whether Harry is or is not dead. Later Dumbledore says, he's the "true master of death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death." If that's the case though, then anyone faced with death would be able to come back if only they didn't fight, so there has to be more to it.

(2) Harry has his own Horcrux. Alright, not really a Horcrux, but the whole "Lily's blood in Voldemort tethers you to life" is, in practicality at least, the same thing. So was Harry able to live because he basically had a different type of Horcrux? A "Blood Horcrux" if you will? If that's true, then doesn't Harry's life and blood also tether Voldemort to life in the same way? On second thought - no it wouldn't because it'd be intent based on Lily's sacrifice. Maybe?

(3) Harry was master of the Hallows. He had the stone and the cloak, and the wand, we find out later, did recognize him as master. So then Harry didn't die either because (a) the wand recognized the master and wouldn't kill him outright or (b) as master of the Hallows, death couldn't find him.

More than likely, it's a both/and rather than a either/or scenario, but which ones? All of them? some of them?

 

Option 4:
Harry wasn't ever dead. Voldemort killed his own Horcrux in Harry's scar, and the waystation bit was Harry's subconscious asking itself 'Hey- why aren't we dead?'

Because really, did Harry learn anything from Dumbledore at that point?

 

From JKR's old site:

I think that kind of ambiguity had been JKR's intention. However, I think we did learn too much from Dumbledore - about his past with Grindelwald and Arianna, for example.

 

One bit of canon I've never understood is why in the opener of Deathly Hallows Harry didn't just Apparate away from Privet Drive and be done with it. Why the complicated plan with Polyjuice, Threstrals, brooms, and the like, putting everyone including Harry at risk? After all, he'd proven himself entirely capable of Apparition by the end of Half Blood Prince.

 

Pretty close. I decided to go back and take a look as I wondered the same thing.

I think it can probably be concluded that either Apparition or Portkey was actually plan A. As far as the trace is concerned, this is the first time I realized that the trace would pick up magic done around the underage person, instead of the person doing it his or herself (edit: I didn't realize it was the trace itself that got Harry in trouble in regards to book 2 and Dobby, but I guess so). So the trace would have picked up whatever magic was done, regardless of how or by whom.

Seems pretty thin plot device to create a battle, but there it is.

 

I always considered this was the case.

Voldemort is to Harry, what the Diary (or any other of Voldemort's Horcruxes (Horcruxi?)) was to Voldemort.

Your Horcrux prevents your soul from passing on. But your soul does not prevent your Horcrux from passing on. It's a one way protection.

 

Yeah, suddenly at the beginning of DH the Order believes it needs to obey the law, even when it knows the Ministry is infiltrated.

 

What was wrong with Albus not telling a child that he was the only one who could the most feared man in their society again? I ask because most Fics tend to highlight that particular point to show how Dumbledore was a manipulative old bastard.

I mean as far as I see, he tried to let Harry have as much a normal childhood as he could.

 

Because it was mean :facepalm

 

While a lot of people are incapable of pulling off manipulative!Dumbledore, I think that crap is so prevalent due to Dumbledore doing next to nothing to prepare Harry for his future confrontation with Voldemort (which preparation wasn't necessary for due to the fact that Dumbledore desired for Harry to play sacrificial lamb instead of valiant warrior). If Dumbledore had taken a greater interest in Harry and Harry's education, I don't think so much Dumbledore bashing would exist in fanfiction. It really would have been more of a mentor wishing to give Harry as much of a childhood as could be afforded.

 

Is Ancient Runes ever implied to be more than a language class?

 

No. As far as I know the work Hermione does for it is only ever mentioned to be translations.