Book 7 - Unanswered Questions (SPOILERS likely)

[Majimaune]

Yeah probably... although it could also depend on where you live. Like I live in Aussieland so I might have got away with it.

[wiked riceball]

was it just me or was the ending a bit naff it relly could have been better harry should have died bu some fault of his own , that would be good

[Joel007]

Well Voldie pretty much killed himself, so that was funny I was hoping that Fred and George would have had some kind of battle scene in which they used their arsenal of jokes to neutralize a larger enemy force!

[wiked riceball]

yer that would be funny aswell, someone really should have exploded in one of the books though

[Leisha]

Originally Posted by PTeppic

From what I've seen, if you'd started being that specific they might have refused the bet on the grounds you had inside information... ironic eh?

Really? That's... I can't believe they'd do that. I suppose it would've looked a little odd. But I always had a feeling the story would go that way -- and it did.

Yeah, I bet the bookies would've refused to pay out. I thought people could bet on anything they like, though?

[PTeppic]

I think they do take bets on almost anything, though there are certain limits. For example I think it's difficult to place bets on your own life expectancy, except under very specific circumstances: I recall someone did it last year. (You can, however, bet on whether you live to a certain age, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/6586637.stm)

However, most wagers placed are for very specific events: City scoring three in the first half against United, Smith winning the Cup on Old Nag, Jones running 100m in less than 9 seconds before the end of 2010, whether cousin Chris will compete for his country before he's 30, etc.

To go in and ask for five or six pretty detailed plot points would be suspicious, despite many other fans would be able to predict similar ideas. As I've espoused in other threads, I had a dozen or so questions that I was expecting to have answered by Hallows. I could have wagered on the outcome of those and would have won on at least half, though some weren't sufficiently yes/no for a bookie (e.g. was it love that saved the day: I'd say no, although it helped in at least three major places, it was wandlore and ownership that ultimately let Harry beat Voldemort, so no win. Okay, I guess they all do come down to yes/no.)

[Majimaune]

Harry didn't technically beat Voldy as you say, it was wandlore. I wish Harry had properly died though...

[Dave]

I take issue with that statement "Harry didn't technically beat Voldy". While it's true that it was Tom Riddle's own backfiring spell that killed him eventually, I think that was the whole point of the very long story.

As Dumbledore told Harry, Riddle was unconcerned with Goblins and Elves, and didn't understand wand lore because he didn't consider any of that to be important to being a good wizard. Those things resulted in his downfall.

Harry proved himself a better wizard because he understood.

[Majimaune]

He proved the better wizard by that yes but he still didn't technically beat him.

[PTeppic]

It's getting into semantics. In the modern battlefield, if you get your enemy to fire a gun that you know has a jammed barrel (as in 1994's "Surviving the Game"), or walk into a field that is laid with mines, both plans would lead to the death of the opponent due to your actions. In this case, Harry knows (or at least believes) that if Voldemort tries to use the killing curse against him, the wand will prevent it; does he know it will backfire to the extent that the spell's caster will be killed, maybe not. Heck, he even warns Voldemort against it, so sure he is about what's likely to happen. So really, it's Voldemort's arrogance and closed-mindedness which kills him, rather than magic, per se. Coming back to the point, does that mean when they are face to face, mano-a-mano, that Harry beats Voldemort, since he's the one who lives? I'd have said so, since he induces Voldemort to commit to the actions (even after fairly clear warnings against it) that result in his own downfall.

[Ironically, Voldermort only has to change wand, since Harry is no longer using his own holly/phoenix one, and he'd be able to kill his teenage nemesis... ]

[Majimaune]

No any wand wouldn't work. Remember in the start how he uses Lucius's wand and it makes no difference. Just cause neither are using the phoenix wands doesn't mean something wouldn't happen like what did. I didn't think Voldemort was using his wand from Ollivanders anyway.

[PTeppic]

It's because Voldemort is using the Elder wand that is why it won't work on Harry and why it backfired. Was that reinforced by Harry using Draco's? (if he still was, I lost track a bit).

But, you're probably right: any other wand might "kill" Harry but he'd just go back to "King's Cross".

[Majimaune]

I laughed at the Kings Cross bit. Thought it was a bit corny.

And I think Harry was still using Draco's wand. He didn't have any other handy did he?

[lea27]

he had bellatrix's wand also, or did Hermione use that in Gringotts and possibly lose it?!

[Majimaune]

I think she might have lost it.