open/close all folders
- Why did Ginny not get to name any of their children? Unless the 'Luna' in Lily Luna is her input. None of the names have particular significance to her. I would have expected a Fred maybe (or even a George's Left Ear). Or possibly even an Arthur.
- George named his first son Fred. Possibly Fred Arthur. And Bill's full name was already William Arthur Weasley note .
- And I seriously doubt that Ginny had no input. I doubt there was a scene of "Hey, Harry, I think we should name him—" "Oh, sorry, I already filled out the birth certificate. He's James Sirius. But you can name the next kid. Maybe."
- Aside from Ginny surely having some input, think about it this way: Harry's an only child. If James or Lily were ever going to get memorialized, it's through him. Ginny is one of seven. Less responsibility there, especially since she probably had her kids after all of her older siblings. (And indeed, Word of God says Percy's daughter was named Molly, though there unfortunately doesn't seem to an Arthur among the Next Gen.)
- Also, despite the extreme prevalence in the wizarding world of naming kids after family members or other people you want to remember, that doesn't imply that that's what everyone wants to do. Ginny may have gone along with Harry's suggestions because she liked those names. Indeed, for all we know, she may have suggested them all herself.
- There is nothing whatsoever that suggests this. In fact it seems awfully convenient that Ginny would have three children no interest to honor anyone on her side of the family.
- The already-made points about Harry being an only child whose parents were murdered and Ginny's siblings already having children named Fred and Molly render this complaint void.
- I can see Ginny as accepting for James Sirius, tolerates Albus Severus (considering she had to live under the Snape regime at Hogwarts), but then pulls her veto power for Lily Nymphadora.
Ginny: How about naming her after Luna? You know, one of our most loyal friends?
- For all we know, Harry and Ginny might have other children back home who were too young to come to the train platform, so are home being babysat by Grandpa Arthur and Grandma Molly.
- Cursed Child shows that this doesn't seem to be the case. James, Lily, and Albus are the only children Harry and Ginny are shown to have. What I don't understand is, why not give James Sirius just one more middle name, Remus? I can see, obviously, why Harry may not want to use "Peter", but Dumbledore himself has three middle names, so it's not like it'd be too out there for James to have two.
- ...Maybe because two middle names isn't normal, Dumbledore was born in a different century, and Harry loves his kids? (Also, be careful about bringing up Cursed Child... especially on this site... people can get scary.)
Snape and Harry
- Severus Snape was a Jerk Ass who hated everyone except his precious Lily. Just because he isn't a Death Eater and made sacrifices to help Dumbledore, doesn't redeem him at all. He was still rude to Harry for no reason, scarred Neville for life, made fun of his students, and called Hermione (and many other people) the Wizarding equivalent of the N-Word even though that was what ended his friendship with Lily. While Dumbledore claims Snape felt the greatest regret for sending Voldemort after Harry, that is a a complete and total lie! Snape only felt remorse because Lily was going to die. He didn't give a crap about James or Harry. Even Dumbledore realized that and told Snape that he "sickens him". If Snape were truly remorseful, he wouldn't have been such so rude to Harry. Snape also refused to teach Occlumency to Harry even though he knew that Voldemort would use legillimency on him. Even Sirius agreed that Snape needed to teach Harry Occlumency. I will admit that Dumbledore had many Jerk Ass moments himself. However, for the most part, Dumbledore treated Harry and the others with kindness and understanding. As for the other names, as others have said, besides Lily's middle name their all named after dead people who Harry knew (Unless Luna died sometime between the last chapter and the epilogue, that's my next point) Ginny was barely associated with most of these people. My next point about the epilogue is that it tells us nothing. The only thing we learn is that Harry, Ginny, Ron, and Hermione all ended up marrying their high school romances. Because that happens ''all'' the time. (This is all the information we're given, this is stuff we could've guessed since the sixth book! We are given some bare facts here in there, but I would have preferred an epilogue that, instead being written within a story format, was written as a fact sheet format. That lists most of the characters, and tells us where they are now. Or at least Have the main characters see off their kids then go into the Leaky Cauldron and discuss what's going on with their lives and the lives of their friends. Instead we get, Harry married Ginny Ron married Hermione, Draco married someone, and Neville became Herbology teacher.
- You find me a single instant of Severus Snape calling someone "Mudblood" in the books following Lily's death, and I will pay you a million Galleons.
- I'll double it. Snape never uses that term after he destroys his friendship with Lily. He even told off Phineas Nigellus Black's portrait for using the word on Hermione.
- He does. He calls Hermione a Mudblood when speaking to Dumbledore's portrait when he's about to hide the sword in the forest, when Harry is looking through the Pensieve.
- Except for the part where that's the exact opposite of what happens in that scene. As stated above, Phineas Nigellus calls Hermione a Mudblood, and Snape angrily shouts at him "Do not use that word!"
- Crap, I was wrong. I thought it was Snape calling Dumbledore "headmaster." I've been misreading it until now.
- And I also want to mention a few things: a) his patronus is a doe, not a stag, so his love for Lily changed to a more selfless love (because had he only wanted her and nothing else by the end of the books, his patronus would have been a stag, the perfect partner), b) Snape was disgusted by Dumbledore raising Harry like a Lamb for slaughter which shows he did eventually protect him and not only Lily (because he is a part of her) and c) YES he was a bastard. What would you be after an abusive childhood, terror in school etc when the only person who EVER stood by you was targeted and killed?
- No matter what his love for Lily was, there's no way Snape's patronus would ever be a stag - that would likely be James' patronus, and we all know he hates him.
Naming kids after other heroes
- What bothered me more than any of the aforementioned things is the fact that Harry apparently deemed Remus and Tonks unworthy of having kids named after them. Every other important dead character does. It's hardly unusual for a kid to have two middle names (I do) and Dumbledore had three! So why not add 'Remus' to James Sirius Potter's name (nice to have all of the Marauders together.) And if you can bring yourself to call a child Albus Severus or Lily Luna, I don't see why you couldn't call one Lily Nymphadora. Or even just Lily Dora. Why the heck did Luna get a kid named after her when she's still alive over when there was still an equally major character who died?
- Added Alliterative Appeal for Lily Luna. Also I think Harry let Teddy have the weight of his parents names rather than the rest of the named characters (minus Luna and Harry's parents) who didn't have children. But then again I wasn't in favor of the naming children after dead people myself.
- To name everyone important, brave or significant to Harry would involve quite a few more children. Also, I like to think that Luna also (vaguely or not) refers to Lupin. Luna does mean moon in Latin, after all.
- You would name your daughter "Nymphadora"? Even herself hated her own name! "Don't call me Nymphadora!". Anyway, I suppose Teddy would name his future children after his parents.
- Certainly he's entitled to first dibs on those names, if anyone is. Indeed, by the time Harry and Ginny are having their second kid, Teddy's probably old enough to tell them he wants to name his kids after his late parents, same as they'd done for Harry's first son.
- Do we ever find out the middle name of Bill and Fleur's daughter? I've always hoped that it was some variation of Nymphadora. That said, I was disappointed when I found out that it was Lily Luna and not Lily Dora.
- The daughter is called Victoire. One of the other children in the epilogue talks about Teddy Lupin kissing Victoire "our cousin".
- Luna is so insecure about her friendships that it'd probably be a huge boost to her confidence to have the Potters name their daughter after her, however.
- Harry married into a famously-fertile family. Who says he and Ginny are intending to stop at three kids? Heck, for all we know there were a couple more Potter kids who got left at home with Grandma Molly and Grandpa Arthur babysitting, because they were too little to see their siblings off at the train station.
Ron cheating on his driving test
- What bugged me the most was that Ron cheated on his driving test and then lied to Hermione about it. Not only cheated, but the method of cheating: confounding a muggle. Now, this isn't about the Statute of Secrecy or saving people's lives. He's doing this for personal gain. He just doesn't want to be bothered to fail the test and re-take it. This is nothing but using a magic on a muggle for personal gain. How is Harry okay with this?
- Also, I'm not sure if magical Britain had any laws against that (which they probably should, even if it's about the same as "animal abuse" in terms of severity due to discrimination), but after Voldemort's defeat, they most definitely did. Hermione is a prominent muggle-born who is a champion for equal rights (remember SPEW?) for all sentient beings- especially muggles, like her parents. I'm sure she managed to pass a few laws after becoming so famous and getting into the Ministry. Now Ron goes and confounds a muggle so he can breeze through an exam as if it were the most natural solution to the problem instead of, you know, failing, admitting his faults, practicing some more and trying again. Yeah, you know that husband and wife see eye-to-eye.
- Have Ron and Hermione ever seen eye to eye?
- Confounding doesn't seem to be a big deal in the HP world. Hermione did it to Cormac McLaggen for no good reason. This is a case of Values Dissonance; it doesn't seem to be something that would bother anyone. Yeah, she'd probably be annoyed if she knew, but not actually upset.
- You know that if anyone had discovered Hermione had done it, she would have lost at least 50 points for Gryffindor and Ron would have been booted off the team. That was cheating, that was wrong, they knew it; they just all hated McLaggen, a lot so nobody ratted her out. Let's put it this way: What if Ron had confounded a magical examiner on a magical exam? Oh yeah, you bet everyone would be on his ass after that one. A muggle, for a muggle test? A-OK. That's racism. Plain and simple.
- Even if that hypothetical would hold true, it could just as likely be that the non-magical-ness of the skill in question is the reason it's not taken seriously. After all, Ron's probably going to supplement any driving he does with magic, so he'll never need the ability to drive legitimately. He probably sees fulfilling every letter of the requirements as a waste of time—heck, even a regular driving test has rules which are often unnecessary or flexible in normal driving. Whereas with a magical test, being unable to pass properly is usually life-threatening to the wizard and/or others. Splinching, anyone? Probably the worst thing about confunding the examiner, in any character's eyes, would be messing with the examiner.
- That's exactly my point! That is racism. Ron sees muggles and their methods as "beneath" him. "My kind does this better than your kind, therefore I don't need to respect or follow your rules." I repeat, this is racism. You don't have to parade around in a lynch mob to be considered racist, actions and opinions like this more than qualify. The fact that the muggle examiner would find it highly offensive and the main characters don't only further exemplifies the fact that this is a racist action. All the characters are magical, so we don't have a muggle opinion, but I know I would by highly offended if someone did that to me. If no white person felt "offended" by enslaving africans, does that automatically mean that the african's opinions never mattered?
- It's not racism, it's Ron recognizing that, for him, the circumstances are quite different because of who and what he is. If a gifted student complains that taking an entry-level college course is a waste of his time because he already knows the subject backwards and forwards, is that "racist"?
- When you put it like that, it's both racist AND elitist. Racist, because it's no big deal if you confound/obliviate a muggle. Elitist, in that: "I'm different and sooper speshul, so I don't have to do these petty muggle things. It's beneath me! Magic makes me too good for this silly driving test." And yes, the gifted student has to take the entry-level college course just like everyone else. Suck it up, and deal with it.
- Most people don´t get licenses for very ridicolous reasons, even though they can drive without killing a dozen pedestrians GTA-style. I think he enchanted the tester only to get the license without retaking the test for petty reasons. If one is capable of driving without causing accidents there shouldn´t be a problem with having a license and I think he takes the same opinion.
- Ron says that he only forgot to look in the wing mirror, and that he can use a super sensory charm for that. It's not like he said "I hit the prop pedestrian. But I can just use a bone mending charm for that." It's something insignificant that can be remedied easily with magic.
- I think that part was some sort of a Continuity Nod of the 6th book, where Ron failed his Apparition test because he splinched half an eyebrow and had to retake it. This was considered petty and unfair by even Hermione, and he probably just don't want the same thing to happen all over again with his driving test.
- The fact that you guys only answered that "it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter for Ron" tells me quite a lot. As already stated above, the violation of the muggle's rights don't factor into your explanations at all. It's like walking into a Hindu temple eating a Double Big Mac. Don't worry, I'm ok with eating beef. It's not a big deal to me. Whatever offense the Hindus feel doesn't matter because I'm not Hindu, eating cows is no big deal for me, and I have no need to respect their beliefs or customs even when I step into their territory.
- That's a little over-dramatic, don't you think? It's not like Ron slipped a girl a magical roofie and then felt her up. All he did was use a spell that caused the muggle some minor confusion to fudge the results of his driving test. Essentially the magical equivalent of We Need a Distraction.
- No, it isn't. He intruded upon person's mind for no good reason. Even setting aside the possible detrimental consequences that we've seen are possible from bothed mind magic, it's still a violation of one's rights, freedom and dignity. Following from your analogy, no he didn't drug a girl to rape her. But he put sedative into hid girlfriend's coffe, because he knew she'd be angry at him for forgetting about her birthday, and he didn't want to deal with it.
- You clearly don't know all there is about what you're talking about. He didn't "intrude upon a person's mind" - the Confundus charm isn't Legilemency, it's just a spell that mildly confuses someone, and probably has many different levels on which it does so. I can understand why you'd be upset about Ron doing something like that, but that doesn't make it a headscratcher. Stop trying to make it out to be more than it is.
- Which does not change the fact that using a Confundus Charm on a Muggle to get him to give you something that you are not otherwise legally entitled to is actually a crime in Wizarding law — "muggle-baiting". For a wizard to muggle-bait is bad. For an Auror to do it is worse. For an Auror who is the son of the man who wrote the Muggle Protection Act to do it is like some kind of triple word score in Jerkass Scrabble.
"All was well"
- Really? No evil person can ever rise to power again, and all's well, and he doesn't have to do anything important anymore, just because one particular scar's connection to one particular dark lord is quiescent?
- Not YET. Someone will eventually rise, that's how history is, and will be. It's just the end of Harry's story, but his children's, however, is just beginning. Any strife might circle around them next time round.
- Well, yeah, that's true. But the general statement bugs me. How is "all well" when people are dying and children are starving and genocides are happening? Just because the threat of Voldemort is gone, doesn't mean all is well. It would have been a much more satisfying ending if Harry had gone on to stop and prevent more widespread evil from happening all over the world, maybe join Genocide Intervention and slow down entropy... no wait, now I'm confusing this with Young Wizards. Sorry. But you do get my drift, right?
- 19 years pass between the Final Battle and the Epilogue. It's also implied throughout the series that the Wizarding World wasn't nearly so fucked up until Voldemort came around— while the racism was always there (and the majority of wizards weren't so much racist as profoundly ignorant), the kangaroo courts, show trials, awful journalism, etc. weren't. Those likely came about in response to Voldemort. We've all heard the 'tough on crime' campaign bullshit from Real Life politicians that in practice are absolutely awful and questionably legal (per whatever national constitution would apply). By the time the Final Battle comes around, the Ministry has gone way too far, and the Wizarding population is definitely beginning to realize that. While things would hardly be perfect in 19 years, they'd be quite a bit better than they were.
- Furthermore, all was well for Harry. Miserable, parentless, unloved-for-his-entire-early-life Harry. His life is good and in order, he's no longer burdened by a destiny he never wanted that required him to kill a man or be killed, he's no longer living with his insufferable aunt and uncle who hate him for just being Harry, he's even patched things up with Dudders. His friends are happy, he's on at least curt-nodding terms with Malfoy, he's become an Auror so he probably is doing some good in the world, and all the pain of the past (Snape's dickishness, Dumbledore's manipulation) has been put to rest. After all the cosmically unfair bullshit this man has been put through, I think "all was well" is the least he deserves.
- ^ You could have stopped at "all was well for Harry". This complaint is ridiculous. Literal-mindedness is a sad thing.
- Adding 'for Harry' in the last sentence would just make it ridiculous, when you consider that the entire book is practically written in HIS point-of-view.
- No more psychopath trying to kill Harry every other minute, no more loved ones dropping dead like Dominoes, no more piece of Voldemort's soul living in Harry, no more horrifying truths being discovered when no one wants to find out about them, no more constant Mind Rape. Is "all was well" too much to ask?
- And, don't forget, he no longer has to worry about his scar exploding with skull-cracking pain at any random moment anymore. That's a bonus!
- If Voldemort is the Wizarding world's equivalent of Hitler then, yes, the expression is correct. We never saw another Hitler. Yes we do had sadly some very similar people like Pol Pot, Milosevic or Idi Amin but not with the same reach and thankfully not the same amount of victims and is unlikely that someone like Hitler can rise to power again and have the same effect in international politics, closest think our modern era has right now is certain clown running for president who we all know who he is (start with T and ends with Rump)
- It is stated that the part of Voldermort in Harry was destroyed, does that mean he is no longer a Parsletongue?
- Yes, Word of God confirms that Harry can't talk to snakes.
Time skip and ages
- The 19 year gap bugs me a little, because Harry's oldest son is, what, 12? I understand that Harry and Ginny might not get married and have kids right away, but seven years? Why? What made them wait for so long? Not like that exact duration had any significance for the plot - it could've just as easily been 12-13 years.
- What, exactly, is wrong with waiting seven years? Couples can wait up to twenty years before they have children, it's not like they had any need to rush.
- Trying to raise Teddy part-time put Harry and Ginny off of having kids of their own for a while.
- A wait of 7 years makes harry about 24 and ginny 23 which is, if anything, a little younger than most. also, Particularly harry might have wanted to have a bit of life that wasn't cooped up at the dursleys or with his life constantly under threat before settling down
- And the fact that Ginny was a Quidditch star for most of that time and she probably did not want kids.
- Also, taking out Voldemort doesn't end the death eater threat. It's definitely a big deal, but Voldemort died before and still had supporters for years. Given Harry's auror ambition (if he still wanted the job after doing it for 7 years and dying for it), he was probably busy for a while.
- Yeah, how could that be considered 'waiting so long'?! These days, starting a family at 23-24 is considered quite young— not teenage parents, obviously, but you'd still mostly likely be the youngest mom in the birth class. Besides, after so many years of life-and-death struggle, wouldn't it be kind of normal for Harry to want to just LIVE a few years— start a career, get married, hang out, have fun, whatever— before taking on the enormous stress and responsibility of starting a family?
- Moreover, both Ginny and Harry have people to grieve for, physical and emotional scars to heal, and fences to mend within their personal lives before they can even think about pursuing a relationship. They need time to get their own lives back to normal, and time to get to know one another again, after being apart for so long. Even more than that, they need to confirm that they're still right for one another: that everything they've been through hasn't changed either one of them enough that it wouldn't work out, to be together. Harry in particular has spent his entire life with a chunk of Voldemort's essence clinging to his soul, and knows from his experiences with the locket that such a burden changes someone's personality; now that he's free of it, he'd surely want to re-start his courtship of Ginny from day one, to make sure she's not marrying the person he used to be, before he got rid of that unwelcome parasite on his psyche.
- Year One after the battle, Ginny was at Hogwarts. Harry was trying to find a place to live and possibly joining the Ministry. The next year, Ginny goes on to play Quiddich and the two of them start to date more. The third year, they get married, but decide that work comes first to making a family. A few years go by until Ginny gets pregnant. That isn't unheard of. Similar for Ron and Hermione. Their first child is starting Hogwarts 19 years later.
- And there's the fact that they barely got a chance to be a couple in the first place. They had about two months at best. Presumably they'd want to at least enjoy being boyfriend and girlfriend. Molly says something like this when Bill and Fleur get engaged after knowing each other only a year at most - that the rise of Voldemort has made people want to hurry and get married right away in case they don't get the chance. So with no fear of getting killed by Death Eaters, couples can now take it as slow as they want.
- Is it me, or was there a huge Dementor-shaped Elephant in the Room? There were some mentions in the Wiki that the Ministery no longer employs the demons as warden in Azkhaban, but surprising diffidence was shown when it came to their exact further fate. Are they still roaming free, spreading misery and sucking people's souls out? The air of happyness that peremeated the final chapter spoke to the contrary, but how exactly was the problem dealt with?
- Dementors need to feed and are capable of breeding, so it stands to reason that they are capable of dying as well. With the wizarding government no longer supporting them (and probably in some cases, actively hunting them), many of them would likely end up simply starving to death. Being that they breed asexually, they probably don't have enormously long lifespans, so their population would dwindle significantly without explicit government support.
- Except, of course, that as (quasi-)demonic entities they could just as easily be immortal and doing what they do Forthe Evulz or out of Horror Hunger.
- Having a need to breed is kind of pointless when you are immortal. See the Immortal Procreation Clause.
- It says that Immortal beings tend to be infertile in fiction, not that they have to be.
- Voldemort didn't invent dementors; they've been a part of the wizarding world's reality, albeit an unpleasant part, for centuries. They don't necessarily have to be exterminated for the world to get back to what passes for normal, just scattered and discouraged from breeding like mad or showing themselves openly.
- Yes, they were a part of it. As in, they chilled out in Azkhaban, sucking on the souls of those shmucks the society sacrificed to them. Once that deal is off, why wouldn't they descent upon the population? What are the wizards going to do about it? "Discourage from breeding" how?
- There's an entire team in the Ministry dedicated to rescuing innocents from dark creatures (if Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is to be believed). And Dementors have been turned loose after Harry's fifth year. So they're no longer at Azkaban, and therefore they could be anywhere. So if there are reports of Dementor attacks, then the department by all means goes out to rescue the victims and stop the attackers.
- Dementors do not reproduce. They are more like manifestations of depression and misery. They grow like fungus in the darkess, most miserable parts of the world. You cannot wipe them out anymore then you can wipe out all misery. You can only reduce where they can form. For now they are just monsters the wizarding world needs to watch out for. Like the killer leopards that destroy villages with their plague breath. Or the spiders the size of cars. Or giants snakes that anyone with a toad and chickens egg can create. The wizarding world is already terrifying.
- Am I the only one who was completely pulled out of the story when Harry qualifies his "It doesn't matter to us, Al" when talking about Al's possibly being in Slytherin with, "but if it matters to you, you can always ask the Sorting Hat to put you in Gryffindor"? After all of this, shouldn't Harry have just left it at, "Go for it"? After all of this "work together", "not all Slytherins are evil" Aesops and in one sentence Harry ruins it all by telling him that he can go to Gryffindor if he wants to.
- And other thing I just thought of, isn't the Sorting supposed to be a secret?
- The point is that Harry wants Al to understand that it's at least partially his decision where he goes. People are much more likely to relax when they feel like they have some kind of influence over whatever they're worrying about. Getting Albus to stop worrying about which House he ended up in took priority over teaching him an Aesop in this instance, and regardless Harry's not trying to say "Slytherin's ok but Gryffindor's better" so much as "both Houses are great, so pick whichever you want".
- I thought it may have been something like reverse psychology, mixed with Harry trying to comfort Albus at the same time. If you're worried about something, and someone tells you, "You can always just choose the 'better' option," in my experience, this can just as well motivate you to think even harder on the subject, instead of just taking it as the guide toward an easy out. There's two ways it could be taken.
Back to the main Headscratchers page