Damn, how did we not think of this?
If you're one of about ten people in the world who haven't read the Harry Potter books or seen the movies, then this post will contain spoilers.
Seven books, eight movies and Harry Potter stubbornly refused to accept death as his fate, well except for one moment but it was all for a good reason.
We're no stranger to fan theories and there's something riveting about reading a theory that completely changes what a certain scene or chapter means for to you.
Over on Reddit, user
WippitGuud, has brought forward a theory which could finally answer the question of whether or not Harry actually died for a few moments in The Deathly Hallows.
The thread is called:
"Dumbledore lied: Harry Potter was not saved from the killing curse at the end of Deathly Hallows. He was resurrected by the Hallows."
The whole thing makes some thought-provoking points as the author disputes the explanation given in the books.
via GIPHY
"Everyone goes by the explanation in Deathly Hallows given by Dumbledore as to why Harry didn't die at the end of the book. He says: because Voldemort took Harry's blood to recreate his body, Lily's protection kept Harry from dying. This statement does not work with the evidence of the event.
- When Harry was hit by the killing curse as a baby, it rebounded and killed Voldemort, necessitating that he create a new body. This did not happen the second time.
- When Harry was hit by the killing curse as a baby, it left a visible mark. This did not happen the second time.
- To destroy a Horcrux, the container must be destroyed.
"Three is the important one here. Harry needed to be destroyed for the part of Voldemort's soul to be killed. Had Lily's protection been responsible for the survival, he would not have died. Hence that portion of soul would also not have died. So, Harry must have been killed."
Ok, that's a lot of information to digest, basically what WippitGuud is saying is that Dumbledore's explanation of why Harry didn't die doesn't add up. Harry did actually die in the Forbidden Forest that night in order to destroy the horcrux.
WippitGuud continues on to state that: "When Harry was in Kings Cross in his head, he could have chosen to move on. Which means he was dead. There was some other force at work which gave him the choice to return to life, without needing the methods Voldemort had to use to create a new body. And Harry had something of that level of power with him - master of the united Hallows: he had the stone and the cloak, and the curse was cast from the Elder Wand, which he was currently master of.
"Because Harry chose to not defend himself, the Wand was not defeating Harry, so its allegiance did not change. Dumbledore even comments on it, "And that, I think, will have made all the difference." Had he tried to duel, he would've lost allegiance to the wand when he lost, and simply died.
"Dumbledore lied to Harry. Probably to protect him - knowing you're the master of the Hallows could make anyone power hungry."
via GIPHY
Harry Potter survived because he was the Master of Death, not because the blood of his mother. Now our minds are officially blown...
And to round it all off, WippitGuud had another little addition to sew the whole theory up nicely.
"Because Harry sacrificed himself to protect others, the people in Hogwarts had the same protection that Harry had when Lily sacrificed herself to protect Harry. From the book:
"I've done what my mother did. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them."
"For that to have actually affected everyone, Harry would've needed to truly die."
Read more...
