For many Harry Potter readers, they know that a house elf cannot be released from its master, unless s/he receives an article of clothing. When Harry manages to trick Lucuis Malfoy into giving Dobby, his house elf, a sock, Dobby was freed from his slavery. It is this aspect Rowling demonstrates how closely linked house elves are to women, prior to suffrage, where they were not allowed to maintain or own property, and were more or less considered property. By offering a house elf clothing, its master is giving it freedom. The same was true for women.

While Dobby is enjoying his new found freedom, though working at Hogwarts, because this is all that he knows; he joins Hermione into convincing the other house elves to demand more. Yet, the house elves of Hogwarts are split: many want freedom, but many are quite content with being house elves. This brings about the great debate of which lifestyle is better, particularly in a woman's life: is it better to be domesticated and a housewife or should she be able to have her own freedom and her own career? This split between the house elves is an interesting point to consider as a parallel to the ongoing debate between women: who is right, housewives or career women?

There is no doubt that SPEW requires further examination, on a deeper level. While Rowling may not have had all of these metaphors in mind while writing Harry Potter, it is interesting how much the plight of the house elf mirrors that of women.

The first observation of the meaning behind Harry's scar is that it makes him different. Harry Potter looks just like any average teenager, except for the lightning bolt shaped scar on his forehead. In fact, Harry thought he was an ordinary person until he discovered the extraordinary history behind his scar. How to Read Literature Like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster mentions author Vladmir Propp, who studied folktales and separated the classic story of the hero into steps. One of the first steps in the process is that the hero must be blemished in some way. Whether he be scarred, lame, or disfigured, he must bear some form of mark that sets him apart. The story of Harry Potter, who received his scar as a baby, seems to apply to this formula. Essentially, Harry's scar makes him unique, it is a physical manifestation of what makes Harry Potter so special.

Another interpretation of the meaning behind his scar could be that it stands as evidence of the damage life deals out. In literature, the most simple blemish can tell a deep personal story. Harry's scar is a constant physical reminder of the incident in which both his parents were killed by his nemesis. The scar perpetually connects Harry to his past. Not only to his traumatic experience with Voldemort, but also to his loving parents who died to protect him. Later in the story it is explained to Harry that he escaped death because his mother gave up her life for him, thus, while it is a reminder of a painful event, the scar is also a sign of his mother's limitless love. It is a symbol of the goodness in his life as well as the bad. Harry stands as an illustration of the way life leaves scars on all who experience it.

There is one more analysis of the meaning behind Harry's scar. According to Thomas C. Foster, when an author calls attention to a physical problem, it suggests that this aspect of his identity will come into play. Foster uses the story of the Oedipus to explain this theory, though I find that Harry Potter shares a few similarities. Both heroes received scars at birth and did not discover the true history behind them until much later.However, the lightning bolt on Harry's forehead seems to be like a badge of honor, visible proof of having survived a great battle and of his destiny to wage more battles in the future. It is this slight imperfection which forever marks him as a hero.

Well first I will speak of how J.K. Rowling became so talented in fiction writing. When J.K. Rowling was only six she always wanted to be an author when she grew up. At the age of six she wrote her own book about a rabbit called Rabbit! J.K. Rowling was inspired because she was surrounded by books, her parents had books every where!

I will now talk about how she came up with the Harry Potter series briefly. When J.K. Rowling was on the train from Manchester to London the whole idea just popped up to her and by the time J.K. Rowling arrived at King's Cross many of the characters formed up in her head. In the book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows she described what her life was like when she was only a child and how she came up with the ideas in more detail.

Her statement is:

“J.K. (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling has written fiction since she was a child, and always wanted to be an author. Her parents loved reading, and their house in Chepstow was full of books. In fact, J.K. Rowling wrote her first "book" at the age of six-a story about a rabbit.

The idea for Harry Potter occurred to J.K. Rowling on the train from Manchester to London, where she says Harry Potter "just strolled into my head fully formed", and by the time she had arrived at King's Cross, many of the characters had taken shape. During the next five years she outlined the plots for each book and began writing the first series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone, which was first published by Bloomsbury in 1997. The other Harry Potter titles: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, followed. J.K. Rowling has also written two companion books, Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to find Them, in the aid of Comic Relief.”

Sirius Black's “Death”

Perhaps there is a reason that Rowling left the question of Sirius' death so open-ended. This tricky genius could easily have developed a loophole in Sirius' “death” so that she could justify him “coming back to life.” But why would he “come back”? What good can Sirius be to the series at this point? Sirius has lived his purpose in Harry's life, and though his life was dear to Harry and his fans in the real world, the man is dead and will not return. Rowling simply has her way of broadening the imagination of her readers. True, we have no proof that he is dead, but we also have no proof that he is alive.

The question is not whether or not Sirius is dead. The question is: what is that arch and what does it mean?

The Seven Pieces of Voldemort's Soul

As you may remember, Dumbledore had six of the suspected seven Horcruxes that Voldemort created. This leaves us with the question: what is the seventh? Perhaps Voldemort created his last Horcrux without intending to. When Voldemort killed Harry's mother, he then turned to kill Harry but could not. Instead of killing him, it is quite possible that Voldemort inserted a seventh of his soul into his enemy. This means that in order to kill Voldemort, Harry must die. You may chuckle at this idea, but Rowling seems to have a very good reason to not continue after Harry's seventh year….

The idea that the Horcrux is Harry's scar, however, is not feasible. The moment Voldemort tried to kill Harry, Voldemort was almost killed. The scar did not appear on Harry until Voldemort was reduced to near-nothingness. Therefore, the Horcrux could not be the scar itself, but it could very well be Harry….

The locket

Rowling is a sneaky writer! Poor Dumbledore strives all year to find the Horcrux-locket, and finally succeeds. He sacrifices himself, more or less, to obtain it, and it is a fake! The real one, however, should not be too difficult to obtain, because it is in the Black home, listed among other items on page 116 of The Order of the Phoenix, a fact that Harry will hopefully realize soon. This must mean that Regulus Black, Sirius' brother, was the one who found it first (the unknown R.A.B.).

As Harry and Dumbledore went to retrieve the locket, there was a boat that led them to the center of the lake where the locket was. The boat began to move once a “man” sat in it, but did not notice Harry as he was still only 16. Dumbledore brought Harry with him because he needed Harry to force him to drink the potion in which the locket was hidden. All this to say, if Regulus beat Dumbledore and Harry to the locket, Regulus must have had an underaged companion. If Dumbledore could not have claimed the locket alone, who else possibly could have? This raises the question of who was with Regulus. This matters because Dumbledore thought that he and Harry were the only ones who knew about Voldemort's Horcruxes. Now we suspect that Regulus knew too, but as he is dead that hardly matters. But if someone else was with Regulus, someone underaged and now just a few years older than Harry, then that opens many doors and a few windows of possibilities.

Snape: Innocent or guilty?

At the end of book five, though we all hated him, the wiser of us trusted Snape to be on the side of Dumbledore. The end of the sixth book, however, is the final straw. On the tower, when Dumbledore heard Malfoy running up the stairs, he endangered himself to ensure Harry's safety. After a few moments of Malfoy struggling to do his duty (killing Dumbledore), Snape busts through the door. Snape, you remember, is bound by a vow he cannot break (unless he dies) to complete Malfoy's work should he fail. Snape killed Dumbledore, so he must be guilty, right? No! Dumbledore was already weak from the potion he drank to obtain the locket. If Snape had not killed Dumbledore, he would have died because of the Unbreakable Vow, and, consequently, one of the many Death Eaters present would have killed Dumbledore instead. Malfoy is another issue - if neither Snape nor Malfoy had killed Dumbledore that night, both would have been punished, and likely killed (of course, Snape would have died anyway). Dumbledore's death would have been Dumbledore's death alone; if Snape had not killed Dumbledore, then the death toll would have been much worse.

Also, before Snape killed Dumbledore, Dumbledore pleaded with him. And, as the narration said, Harry had never heard Dumbledore plead. The automatic thought is that Dumbledore is pleading with Snape for his own life. Oh, please! Dumbledore is no fool; he knew he was, at that moment, useless. Not even Dumbledore can defend himself against half a dozen Death Eaters with no wand. “There was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of [Snape's] face.” Snape did not kill Dumbledore because of the hate; he hated Dumbledore because he had to kill him. Dig deeper and everything points to Snape's innocence. Dumbledore knew Snape would rather die than kill Dumbledore, but Dumbledore had Malfoy in mind to protect, and Snape himself, and of course Harry. As was recently pointed out to me, perhaps Dumbledore pleaded with Snape to kill him. After all, Voldemort trusted Snape, so, naturally, Snape was more valuable.

Rowling's brilliance lies in the clues she leaves us about the future of Harry Potter, and how everything fits together in the end. These theories are well-thought out and fit the clues, but could easily be wrong. Or who knows? Maybe there are some things that Rowling will not tell us even in the seventh book, but will leave for us to decide for ourselves….

emma_radcliffe

thought he was a good guy the whole time. I despised him throughout the series of the books, and I never thought he would turn out to be the biggest hero in the end.

The Biggest Twist in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows

At the end of the book, Snape dies a tragic death and when Harry just learns Snape was loyal to Dumbledore to the end. Mostly everyone thought he was a death eater and hated him, but he remained unloved until the very end.

Dumbledore's Sanity

Many people thought Albus Dumbledore was mental to trust Snape and even Harry Potter questioned Dumbledore's wisdom. Dumbledore was always right, but when Snape killed him at the tower, I was sure Dumbledore was proved wrong once and for all. Dumbledore turned out to be right as always.

Evilness of Snape

J.K. Rowling pretty much exaggerated how evil Snape was in every book. Very few people guessed he was really loyal to Dumbledore the whole time.

People who have seen the movie are advised to read this book because the book tells a lot more than the film does. Such as, in the chapter, Norbert, the Norwegian Ridgeback, it tells you exactly how they sent Norbert the dragon off, not just where and when. The author; J.K. Rowling, writes the story as if she is gripped by her own writing. In Harry Potter they have a game called Quidditch. There are seven players; three Chasers, two Beaters, a Keeper and a seeker. The two chapters that have Quidditch are two of the best chapters in the book. This book is really unpredictable, even if you have seen the movie. This book is a real page-turner. Even if you've seen the film you'll find yourself hanging on to every last word in the book. Even if you've read the book before you wouldn't be able to put it down.

My favourite characters have to be the Weasley twins. Their names are Fred and George. They're so funny and there always pulling pranks on the other students. They even tried to send Harry a toilet seat while he was in the hospital wing. They're on the Gryffindor Quidditch team as well. The ending was really good because he fought in a dual against the Wizard that killed his parents, Voldemort. There were absolutely no low points in this book. The high point in the book is the big Quidditch match against Slytherin. I would recommend this book to anyone who loves quick-paced action packed stories. Out of ten I would have to give it a ten, its one of the best books I've read this year.

Being a handsome and extremely talented wizard, it is a wonder that Dumbledore never had a romantic partner in the series. And it's not until the final book that Dumbledore's sexual orientation is at all addressed. After his death, Harry meets an old male friend of Dumbledore's who had a strong and long emotional relationship with Dumbledore and who, like Harry, strongly admired and respected Albus Dumbledore. Apparently, this relationship was something more than just a friendship and Dumbledore was in fact romantically involved with this friend.

The books never explicitly state that Dumbledore is not a homosexual, nor do they state that he is. The author does not spend much time dwelling on the sexual orientations of her characters. After all, this is a children's series - isn't it? And wasn't widely assumed that this series contained biblical principles?

No matter what fans choose to believe about the beloved Albus Dumbledore's sexual orientation, the question of the author's subtle themes in the books still remain. Did she want the books to show biblical principles in the fight of good over evil, love, sacrifice and kindness; or did she want the books to be a fantasy novel buried in stories of lies, deceit and homosexuality? Now that Rowling has announced that one of her main characters is gay many are confused as to exactly what themes she is promoting in this series. It was formerly considered that the series contained many biblical implementations.

Harry's mother sacrifices her life for Harry to live and he consequently becomes "the Chosen One" who has to engage in a life long battle with Voldemort - the epitome of evil in the wizarding world. The consequence of his one day overcoming Voldemort is the salvation of the wizarding world, a peaceful and equal world. The somewhat godly Dumbledore is Harry's idol, confident and mentor. Harry possesses qualities of loyalty, honesty and honor. Likewise, Harry and his friends learn various qualities throughout the series that reflect the values of the Bible.

With this in mind, it is somewhat surprising that Rowling has revealed her most godly character is a homosexual. There is barely any evidence in the series that this is so and perhaps this homosexual notion is occurring in the wizarding world that resides in J. K. Rowling's head, rather than the reality that her readers experience. There is more evidence that Rowling has drawn parallels to the Bible than to homosexuality. These themes are the very core of her books; good over evil, love and sacrifice, and faith and honor. Whereas the notion that Dumbledore is gay is mere speculation of what might have been if the world of Hogwarts and wands was in fact reality.

Ultimately, while we can continue to speculate about whether or not Dumbledore fancied other men or if the series is in fact based on biblical themes, the core of the matter comes down to what her readers feel. Each of us who has read the series has created our own version of Rowling's magnificent world of magic and what we choose to believe about that world is completely up to us. If one fancies a gay Dumbledore in his or her Hogwarts - then so be it. If one fancies a noble and godly Dumbledore - then so be that too.

Also in tonight's news a squadron of Vietnamese Potbelly Pigs flew from Little Rock to Denver for the Republican Convention. But worst of all children and adults who have read the Harry Potter books or have seen the movies made from them are convening a vast coven in New York City in preparation to take over the world by witchcraft, led by Potter himself now that Voldemort is dead.

Sadly, we have people in this country and other civilized places that might believe that. They are the ones, fundamental Christians mostly, stamping the Potter books and movies with the curse of witchcraft and trying forbid all children and adults from reading the books or seeing the movies. Especially if the children do, say the fundamentalists, they will be-not can be-will be made into witches and wizards and follow the dark arts themselves. Some say J. K. Rowling, the creator of Harry Potter, is the Anti-Christ, and that her sole purpose is to steal the minds of our children and establish the kingdom of Satan.

How can anyone believe such rubbish in the 21st Century? They can believe it because the Bible tells them so, and because they have to have a reason why everything, including their children, is going to hell in a hand basket because it couldn't be their fault. It's Rowling's fault. It's the devil feeding them drugs. It's soap opera with their uncontrolled sex on the screen. It's rampant communism leading them down the garden path. It's liberalism turning their minds. It's conservatism making them cold and heartless. It's rock and roll, hip hop, rap-it is anything but us, the adults responsible for our children's upbringing.

Denigration of witches is the product of our Judeo-Christian culture. Condemned by both the Old and New Testaments, witchcraft and sorcery have motivated atrocities against thousands, maybe millions, or people for millennia. Anyone who was different could be classified as a witch and be hunted and treated abominably, testified to by our history of Jim Crow and legislated segregation, the Salem witch trials, or the fight Wiccans have had recently to have Wicca recognized by the Federal Government as a religion with all the right and privileges there unto.

The classical image of a witch is an ugly old woman hunched over a cauldron in which floats eyes of newts, oil squeezed from rats, blood of zombies, or other such nonsense. Shakespeare has them seated on slimy ground predicting Macbeth and Duncan's fates. Likewise wizards are gnarled ancient old men with distorted faces and misty eyes reaching out with wands to condemned their prey. And if we can imagine living in a world dominated by superstition where the only occasional light at night was fire with its distortions and dancing shadows creating supernatural images to accompany stories of ghosts and goblins and the undead, which to gullible people were real, it is easy to understand belief in witchcraft.

But classical witches and wizards never existed, and they do not today. Anyone who is not addled knows that. Most children are not addled, and they know HARRY POTTER IS FICTION. If they do not know it is fiction and if their parents do not, then they are addled and need psychiatric help. Get real. How many little boys leap from tall buildings in attempts to fly after seeing any of the Superman movies? Do any of your children insist they are in Oz after seeing The Wizard of Oz, who turns out to be a bumbling charlatan? If they do, take them to a doctor.

My point is that J.K. Rowling created Harry Potter from her mind, one of most incredible, in my opinion, since C. S. Lewis died. And my second point is that the vast majority of children and adults know it.

I don't mean to insult anyone's belief, and I am not taking on the superstitious aspects of religion. But when religion, particularly fundamental Christianity in this case, stands between children and some of the finest literature created in this and the last century, someone needs to attempt to shake them to their senses. Witches and wizards, except for members of Wicca, do not exist.

People cannot cast spells like the characters in Rowling's novels. No one has ever exited who can do that, neither do they now nor will they ever in the future. We see life, or should see life, through the lenses of modern science. We see our souls through the lenses of religion. We know more now than those sad, deluded people in Salem, Mass., who condemned innocent men and women to death because they were found to be different and who could perhaps do something someone else could not do. Like the woman condemned a witch because she made apple dumplings. She had to make one in front of the court to prove she did not use magic to get the apple inside the pastry.

Finally, who am I to say all this with such great authority, condemning as a fool anyone who believes in the reality of magic and witchcraft? Read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows; I may be Lord Voltemorte.