Why didn't Harry use a deathly hallow? - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) Discussion

[–] otter 7 years ago

He used all three.

“Seventy-seven courses and a regicide, never a wedding like it!

reply

[–] Alex_RM7 7 years ago

I meant while dueling Voldemort, or fighting that snake?

reply

[–] jokiwi 7 years ago

Becuase Harry is a different kind of wizard, that has been mentioned in a few of the movies. Harry I think did not need those to beat old Voldy, he did it with the help of his friends, not items.

reply

[–] Manipole 7 years ago

He had no time to put it on when he fought the snake. It was attacking him. He couldn't just say, "Time out! Let me get my cloak on!".

When he dueled Voldemort he needed Voldemort to focus on him. If he's invisible Voldemort can't target him and goes after others instead. He knew if Voldemort used the curse it wouldn't work, so he didn't need the cloak.

reply

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

In the DH book, he actually used it twice that I recall while attacking others. The first was at the diner when he hit one of the DEs while under his cloak. The second time was when he was at the Ministry and , while under the cloak (as Runcorn) Harry attacked both Umbridge and Yaxley. During the Gringotts break-in, while wearing the cloak, he confunded the guards and then imperiused the goblin Bogrod and DE Travers.

Bob

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

In the DH book, he actually used it twice that I recall while attacking others. The first was at the diner when he hit one of the DEs while under his cloak. The second time was when he was at the Ministry and , while under the cloak (as Runcorn) Harry attacked both Umbridge and Yaxley. During the Gringotts break-in, while wearing the cloak, he confunded the guards and then imperiused the goblin Bogrod and DE Travers.

"Attacking others" is a misuse of the Invisibility Cloak.

As we learn from the moral of the Tale of Three Brothers, the cloak's purpose was meant as a way to dodge or avoid Death, not as a way to deal death or harm to others.

Perhaps Harry became more circumspect with his use of the Cloak later in life. But his irresponsible use of it in Deathly Hallows makes it clear that Harry was wise to dispose of the other two Deathly Hallows after they had served their purpose. He wasn't mature enough to use them properly.

reply

[–] Manipole 7 years ago

So when two death Eaters are trying to kill Ron and Hermione and kidnap him to take to Voldemort, it's immature to defend himself? Really? He should have let them kill his best friends and take him to be killed because he was under the cloak?

I didn't realize self defense was irresponsible.

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

I didn't realize self defense was irresponsible.

What you didn't realize was the wording of the post you are addressing. "Self-defense" wasn't mentioned. "Attacking others" was mentioned. More careful reading will serve you well.

In the DH book, he actually used it twice that I recall while attacking others... Harry attacked both Umbridge and Yaxley. During the Gringotts break-in, while wearing the cloak, he confunded the guards and then imperiused the goblin Bogrod and DE Travers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Attacking others" is a misuse of the Invisibility Cloak.

Severe embarrassment and possible imprisonment was the result of Harry using his cloak and wand on Ministry of Magic staff. Using the Imperious spell from beneath the cloak in Gringotts led to the death of a goblin or two.

reply

[–] Manipole 7 years ago

Because he attacked them in self defense. Umbridge and Yaxley were sending innocent muggle borns to Azkaban, and worse. He was defending Mary Cattermole and every other muggle born they were interrogating.

Severe embarrassment and possible imprisonment was the result of Harry using his cloak and wand on Ministry of Magic staff.

Embarrassment and imprisonment? If Harry gets caught, he gets killed. If Ron and Hermione are caught helping him, they and their families are killed. A bit worse than "embarrassment". Maybe you missed the fact that Voldemort had the entire Ministry looking for Harry so he could kill him. More careful reading will serve you well.

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

Because he attacked them in self defense. Umbridge and Yaxley were sending innocent muggle borns to Azkaban, and worse.

Again you struggle with word meanings. That isn't "self-defense". That is no different than black people ambushing random policemen to assassinate because police have killed black people in other cities. Do you argue that is "self-defense"?

Anyway, that's not why they did it. They did it to get the horcrux.

Embarrassment and imprisonment? If Harry gets caught, he gets killed.

By whom? Voldemort? Harry volunteered for that, so no big deal.

If Ron and Hermione are caught helping him, they and their families are killed.

Where do you see an example of the death penalty and execution being sentenced in the Magical Government of Harry Potter world? Buckbeak?

Maybe you missed the fact that Voldemort had the entire Ministry looking for Harry so he could kill him.

As already noted, you missed the fact that Voldemort did kill Harry.

reply

[–] Manipole 7 years ago

They freed half a dozen muggle borns who had been captured. Including Mary Cattermome who was about to get the Dementors kiss. So yes, it was self defense.

By whom? Voldemort? Harry volunteered for that, so no big deal.

Wrong. Voldemort wanted Harry dead whether Harry went after his Horcruxes or not. It had nothing to do with a choice by Harry.

Where do you see an example of the death penalty and execution being sentenced in the Magical Government of Harry Potter world? Buckbeak?

I'm not talking about the government or a death penalty. I'm talking about Voldemort and the fact that he killed people for helping Harry and much less. Hermione was going to be eaten alive by Greyback just for being an ally of Harry. The entire Weasley family had to go into hiding because Ron was caught with Harry. Did you miss all that?

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

They freed half a dozen muggle borns who had been captured. Including Mary Cattermome who was about to get the Dementors kiss. So yes, it was self defense.

You are still struggling with the definition of "self-defense". Helping OTHER people is a very nice thing to do, but it isn't SELF defense.

Self-defense (self-defence in many varieties of English) is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm

Wrong. Voldemort wanted Harry dead whether Harry went after his Horcruxes or not. It had nothing to do with a choice by Harry.

You didn't notice that Harry volunteered to surrender himself to Voldemort? That Slytherin House wanted to turn him in earlier and were locked up for it? That Harry's other friends were horrified when he volunteered to walk to the Forbidden Forest as instructed? How only Hermione seemed to understand, she being the only one wise enough to know Harry had a horcrux within him?

So, I guess you missed that part?

I'm not talking about the government or a death penalty.

Actually you were, if you go back and read your own post.

I'm talking about Voldemort and the fact that he killed people for helping Harry and much less.

Perhaps you could name some of those he killed for this reason? I don't think you can. Even Harry's mother was killed accidentally by jumping into the path of the spell intended for Harry. Voldemort's actions are not as simple as you are thinking they are.

Voldemort's goal wasn't to kill everybody. He just wanted to remove obstacles from his path to dictatorship. Notice he was more likely to kill Snape, his ostensibly closest ally, than killing Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, Neville and other of Harry's closest friends. He could have done that at any time during the Battle of Hogwarts but didn't.

Hermione was going to be eaten alive by Greyback just for being an ally of Harry.

Eaten or bitten? And was that perhaps because he was a hungry werewolf rather than a political execution?

The entire Weasley family had to go into hiding because Ron was caught with Harry.

And this is "the death penalty" in what way?

You seem to be forgetting that Dementors and Azkaban still existed and functioned all the way through Deathly Hallows. That was the fate of most enemies of Voldemort and friends of Harry Potter.

reply

[–] Manipole 7 years ago

You didn't notice that Harry volunteered to surrender himself to Voldemort? That Slytherin House wanted to turn him in earlier and were locked up for it? That Harry's other friends were horrified when he volunteered to walk to the Forbidden Forest as instructed? How only Hermione seemed to understand, she being the only one wise enough to know Harry had a horcrux within him?

So, I guess you missed that part?

How does that have anything to do with what I've said. You acted like Harry was only ever in danger because he chose to fight Voldemort. That's false. Voldemort wanted him dead no matter what. Even if Harry had no interest in bringing Voldemort down, and just wanted to ignore the entire war, Voldemort would still try to kill him. It's not like he said, "He opposed me! I'm going to punish him by killing him!". Voldemort wanted to kill him because of the prophecy, not because of anything Harry did.

Eaten or bitten? And was that perhaps because he was a hungry werewolf rather than a political execution?

Bellatrix says they can dispose of Hermione. She was going to be given to Greyback to eat. You keep mentioning politics for reasons that are known only to you. Unless you're saying Bellatrix worked for the ministry?

I don't think you can. Even Harry's mother was killed accidentally by jumping into the path of the spell intended for Harry.

Completely wrong. He does not accidentally kill her. He means to kill her. She stands in his way, he offers her a chance to get out of his way, she doesn't, and he kills her. He even says, "He could have forced her out of the way, but it seemed more prudent to finish them all off".

Voldemort did not accidentally kill Lily Potter.

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

How does that have anything to do with what I've said.

You said Harry used the cloak in self-defense against Voldemort. And you were wrong about that.

Bellatrix says they can dispose of Hermione.

Not in the movie. We are discussing the movie. Look up at the top. It says "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)". There is no book named that.

Voldemort did not accidentally kill Lily Potter.

And this relates to the use of the Invisibility Cloak how, exactly? I think you have gotten completely lost regarding the topic of conversation.

reply

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

"Even Harry's mother was killed accidentally by jumping into the path of the spell intended for Harry."

She was killed because Voldy fired the spell at her. She did not jump in front of a spell intended for her son.

Bob

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

"Even Harry's mother was killed accidentally by jumping into the path of the spell intended for Harry."

She was killed because Voldy fired the spell at her. She did not jump in front of a spell intended for her son.

She did jump into the path of the spell intended for her son. That's why Harry became protected. Voldemort had to get her out of the way to kill Harry.

Voldemort intended to spare Lily's life per the request of Severus Snape. Her death was not planned and intended, and was therefore accidental.

reply

[–] Manipole 7 years ago

No, she didn't. In neither the book or the movie.

He went there intending to give her a chance to live. After he got there he decided to kill her too when she wouldn't get out of his way.

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

He went there intending to give her a chance to live.

Proving that Voldemort did not intend to kill everyone associated with or involved in helping Harry Potter as you asserted. Of course there is plenty of other, similar evidence proving that assertion wrong also.

reply

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

In the book, Lily was standing in front of the crib and begging Voldy to kill her, not her son. Voldy gave her two chances to move. When she didn't, he killed her. She never moved. The movie has Voldy aiming straight at her.

Bob

reply

[–] Theshornwonder 7 years ago

What an idiotic post. You should delete it.

reply

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

""Attacking others" is a misuse of the Invisibility Cloak."

So says you. His use of the cloak while attacking others was justified. It may not have been completely necessary at the Ministry as he was already under the polyjuice potion, but it still was a surprise attack that even had he not been wearing the cloak, it likely would still have ended the same way.

In the Gringotts break-in, he had to use the cloak so no one could see him or Griphook. Had he not confunded the guards, they would have been discovered. Also, with the goblin, Hermione and Ron likely would have been detained had Harry not imperiused him.

There was one more attack from under the cloak and that was Luna stupefying Alecto while both were in the Ravenclaw common room.

Nothing Harry did under the cloak was to his selfish benefit, which was the issue with the cloak. He also didn't willy-nilly try to harm others while under the cloak. He used it to his advantage to save others.

Bob

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

""Attacking others" is a misuse of the Invisibility Cloak."

So says you.

So says the book and the movie via the Tale of Two Brothers. Who did the youngest brother attack?

His use of the cloak while attacking others was justified.

"Justice" is a matter of opinion.

But I did not say Harry's use of the Cloak was "unjustified". I said it was a "misuse" meaning it wasn't the intended use of the device.

A claw hammer is designed to pound in and to remove nails. If you use a claw hammer to smash a car window and rescue someone from a wreck that is "justified" by most people's definition. If you use a claw hammer to smash a car window to steal a stereo that is "unjustified" by most people's opinion.

But both are "misuses" of the claw hammer. It wasn't designed, made nor purchased for performing that task.

In the Gringotts break-in, he had to use the cloak so no one could see him or Griphook.

That doesn't make it a proper use of the Cloak. The Cloak was expressly created to dodge death.

Nothing Harry did under the cloak was to his selfish benefit, which was the issue with the cloak. He also didn't willy-nilly try to harm others while under the cloak. He used it to his advantage to save others.

All that may be true. But you have still confused the term "misuse" with "unjustified". Hopefully my use of that word is now clear.

reply

[–] Manipole 7 years ago

You also say he was irresponsible and immature by his uses of the cloak. I guess trying to stop the most dangerous dark wizard of all time and saving others is irresponsible?

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

You also say he was irresponsible and immature by his uses of the cloak. I guess trying to stop the most dangerous dark wizard of all time and saving others is irresponsible?

Correct.

Harry would have been better served in his goals if he had availed himself of the help of dozens of more experienced, knowledgeable and skilled wizards.

Instead he chose to go on his quest alone, only bringing a couple teen-aged friends with him because they insisted. Completely immature, irresponsible, and poor judgment shown and all for the sake of making a better fiction story.

By your philosophy, WWII was a waste of time. Instead of sending all those soldiers and weapons and atomic bombs and using the combined wisdom of generals and scientists, the responsible thing to do would have been to send three teenagers to get rid of Adolph Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo.

reply

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

"So says the book and the movie via the Tale of Two Brothers."

The tale of the Three Brothers is not valid for practical applications of the real life objects.

"I said it was a "misuse" meaning it wasn't the intended use of the device."

An unusual way to refer to the term misuse, which is thought of as using something incorrectly. The cloak was created to keep hidden. Harry used it as intended. What one does while using it is another issue altogether. A hammer isn't misused to save someone from a car, it is just an off-use.

"The Cloak was expressly created to dodge death."

That wasn't stated. In the Tale of the Three Brothers, it was given to the final brother and he used it to hide from death. In a sense, this was not the intended use of the cloak by Death so by your definition of misuse, the final brother misused the cloak while the first two brothers used their gifts properly.

However, when referring to the Ignotus Peverell, nothing was stated regarding his intent when he crated it. For all we know, he could have created it to better attack people. We can't rely on the Beedle story to determine who Ignotus was. His was a fairy tale based on the three items and likely the three Peverell brothers.

Bob

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

The tale of the Three Brothers is not valid for practical applications of the real life objects.

It is. Otherwise there is no purpose to it. And it clearly has an important purpose in the story. Otherwise it wouldn't be there.

Can you explain why we get Tale Of Three Brothers rather than a history of the Peverell brothers? I don't think you can.

"I said it was a "misuse" meaning it wasn't the intended use of the device."

An unusual way to refer to the term misuse

Not at all. It is the primary definition.

which is thought of as using something incorrectly.

Using a tool correctly means using it for its intended purpose. "Misuse" referring to morality or justice is only a secondary meaning. Feel free to check the dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misuse?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

"The Cloak was expressly created to dodge death."

That wasn't stated. In the Tale of the Three Brothers, it was given to the final brother and he used it to hide from death.

It was REQUESTED by the youngest brother. Death had to tear his own cloak to provide it. The purpose of this tool was decided by the youngest brother, which is allegory for the purpose Ignotus Peverell created it for. As the "humblest and wisest" of the Peverell brothers we can surmise that the Cloak was meant for humble and wise purposes, unlike the other two Deathly Hallows. Using the cloak to hide while zapping goblins in Gringott's is not something Ignotus would have expected the cloak to be used for.

In a sense, this was not the intended use of the cloak by Death so by your definition of misuse, the final brother misused the cloak while the first two brothers used their gifts properly.

Death is a poetic metaphor. The Peverell Brothers made the Deathly Hallows and the Elder Wand and Resurrection Stone were made for selfish and self-aggrandizing purposes. Not the Cloak.

However, when referring to the Ignotus Peverell, nothing was stated regarding his intent when he crated it.

Incorrect. You are not sufficiently familiar with canon to be aware of it.

For all we know, he could have created it to better attack people

Incorrect. Such a use is neither "humble" nor "wise".

We can't rely on the Beedle story to determine who Ignotus was.

We can.

The Youngest Brother in the story was the most humble and wise. Ignotus was the most humble and wise of the Peverell Brothers. That connection wasn't randomly made by Rowling. You think the Three Brothers story is meaningless, random gibberish that Rowling put into her book just to fill in some blank pages. It isn't. It has direct relevance to the Harry Potter story, as does everything else she wrote.

reply

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

"Can you explain why we get Tale Of Three Brothers rather than a history of the Peverell brothers? I don't think you can."

The story was to tell the fairy tale of the three objects and the legend of what the Deathly Hallows were and how they became named. However, the fairy tale was just that, a fairy tale. There is no reason to believe that the three Peverells bore any resemblance to the three brothers in the story, at least personality-wise.

"Using a tool correctly means using it for its intended purpose.:

Yes, but using it incorrectly is up for debate. I am not simply talking about morality but simple use. Using a show to kill a bug isn't necessarily a misuse of the shoe, just a different use for it. Silly Putty is being misused for what it originally was intended to be. Play Doh is being misused for its original purpose.

"Death had to tear his own cloak to provide it. The purpose of this tool was decided by the youngest brother, which is allegory for the purpose Ignotus Peverell created it for."

Death gave the third brother his Invisibility cloak. He did not tear his cloak. However, the tales were written down by Beedle in the fifteenth century while Ignotus lived in the thirteenth century. That is around 200 years of time separating the two characters. How did Beedle know who Ignotus was or his true character? Again, this was a fairy tale using the concept of three actual people he may have read about.

It is no difference than how some real life fairy tales were crated. Snow White and Cinderella were both based on real women but in no way do we attribute any descriptions of these characters on their real world counterparts.

"You are not sufficiently familiar with canon to be aware of it."

So provide for me where in the canon we get the intentions Ignotus Peverell had in creating the cloak. You stated before we don't get a history of the Peverells, so how can we know who he was? Based on a moral tale that was canonically written about 200 years after he was alive by a person who likely was never alive while Ignotus was?

"Ignotus was the most humble and wise of the Peverell Brothers"

Again, you can't point anywhere in canon to say that he was humble or wise (other than wise in the magical arts). The Tale of the Three Brothers was written as a morality tale, attributing the owner of the cloak as the most humble to teach a lesson to the audience. If you want to attribute the characteristics of the in-universe fictional third brother to Ignotus Peverell, fine, but it is not canonical.

Bob

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

"Can you explain why we get Tale Of Three Brothers rather than a history of the Peverell brothers? I don't think you can."

The story was to tell the fairy tale of the three objects and the legend of what the Deathly Hallows were and how they became named.

In other words, no. You cannot explain why Rowling chose to use a fairy tale to explain the Deathly Hallows rather than a straight narrative.

If you better understood the nature of fairy tales, myths, etc. the purpose of her choice would become clear.

Harry Potter: "So it's true? All of it? The Peverell brothers —" Albus Dumbledore: "— were the three brothers of the tale. Oh yes, I think so. Whether they met Death on a lonely road… I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects. The story of them being Death's own Hallows seems to me the sort of legend that might have sprung up around such creations." — Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore during the former's visit to Limbo[src]

"Using a tool correctly means using it for its intended purpose.:
Yes, but using it incorrectly is up for debate.

So you understand my point. Good.

Using a show to kill a bug isn't necessarily a misuse of the shoe

It is unless the shoe has a special bug-killing widget included in the design. A shoe's manufacture is generally intended for foot covering.

Silly Putty is being misused for what it originally was intended to be. Play Doh is being misused for its original purpose.

Key word- "originally". Since these are now purposefully manufactured as playthings, they now come in colors and egg-shaped containers. Originally they did not. There are now also special precautions against toxicity which were not originally in place. Originally, giving a child wallpaper cleaner or a failed rubber substitute to play with would have been a misuse of the product.

It is no difference than how some real life fairy tales were crated. Snow White and Cinderella were both based on real women but in no way do we attribute any descriptions of these characters on their real world counterparts.

Don't say "we". The more insightful reader realizes that the personalities of fairy tale characters matter more than magic pumpkins and glass slippers in their timelessness and relevance to the human condition.

You stated before we don't get a history of the Peverells, so how can we know who he was?

Inference from the fairy tale of course. Which you have already said you don't understand the purpose of.

The Tale of the Three Brothers was written as a morality tale, attributing the owner of the cloak as the most humble to teach a lesson to the audience.

And morality is always based on reality. Real world results. That's why we don't see fairy stories which provide bad advice for living life.

reply

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

"You cannot explain why Rowling chose to use a fairy tale to explain the Deathly Hallows rather than a straight narrative. "

And you can? The way I see it, which you are free to disagree with, since the objects were known as the Deathly Hallows, they were named after a character of Death, who was part of a fairy tale story. Note how they aren't called the Peverell Hallows. The Deathly Hallows were the fictional versions of the Peverell's objects.

"A shoe's manufacture is generally intended for foot covering."

And for protecting the foot. Therefore killing a bug while wearing a show is an alternate use of the shoe, but not a misuse. As for the invisibility cloak, it was created to hide oneself. Harry used it for this purpose and only this purpose. He didn't use it as a blanket or a bath towel. He used it for stealth.

"The more insightful reader realizes that the personalities of fairy tale characters matter more than magic."

Yes, the nature of the characters do matter more, but it still doesn't mean the character whom a fairy tale is based on bears the same characteristics as the character in a fairy tale. Fairy tales are not based on real life stories. The individuals are usually fictionalized characterizations of the people they are based on.

Now I am still awaiting Harry Potter canon regarding the intentions of the peverells in creating their objects and what theier personalities were. You cannot because the Peverell brothers were not part of any story, including the Tale of the Three Brothers. Why do you think the three brothers were never named?

Bob

reply

[–] omarpowermotivation 7 years ago

He came back to life because he united the 3 and become master of death---then he broke the elder wand to reverse it.

reply