Why did Harry Potter intentionally lose the Resurrection Stone in the Forbidden Forest?

  • Just before he is sacrificed to Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest, Harry dropped the Resurrection Stone.

    “I thought he would come,” said Voldemort in his high, clear voice, his eyes on the leaping flames. “I expected him to come.”
    Nobody spoke. They seemed as scared as Harry, whose heart was now throwing itself against his ribs as though determined to escape the body he was about to cast aside. He hands were sweating as he pulled off the Invisibility Cloak and stuffed it beneath his robes, with his wand. He did not want to be tempted to fight.
    “I was, it seems . . . mistaken,” said Voldemort.
    “You weren’t.”
    Harry said it as loudly as he could, with all the force he could muster. He did not want to sound afraid. The Resurrection Stone slipped from between his numb fingers, and out of the corner of his eyes he saw his parents, Sirius, and Lupin vanish as he stepped forward into the firelight. At that moment he felt that nobody mattered but Voldemort. It was just the two of them.

    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 34. The forest again, page 592 of 638

    Why did he do that?
    And Why didn't he come back and search for it later?

    The second I saw that in the movie I thought "Rowling just gave herself a way to continue the story". Never really noticed it in the book.

    Protected because of repeated answers to the effect of "it's to bring back Voldemort".

    ...because you don't do that and next thing you know you're walking barefoot to a godforsaken volcano to destroy it...

  • TGnat

    TGnat Correct answer

    9 years ago

    Dumbledore was very clear that Voldemort's fear of death and attempted mastery over it was the primary root of his evil. Harry didn't have any ambition to become the Master-of-death. The point was made clear in the book when Harry chose to continue the search for Horcruxes (Horcruxi?), over searching for the Hallows. The movie attempts to make the same point when Harry breaks the Elder Wand. In either case the Stone is probably the most insidious of the three Hallows in that it only gives its user a shadow of what they actually desire.

    Would it not have made more sense to destroy it as he did with the Elder Wand then?

    You can then ask, why did he not destroy the invisibility cloak, too?

    Dropping an unremarkable looking stone on the forest floor is probably the best way to make sure it's never seen again...

    Technically you need all three to be the master-of-death. Ridding yourself of any one of the three is all you should need.

    I'd think there'd be no need to destroy the invisibility cloak, since it's the only one of the three Hallows that is practical and useful (the Elder Wand is useful, but invites attacks from those desiring it). I'm sure Harry could use the cloak in his work as an Auror.

    @espais The Elder Wand is an extremely powerful magical artifact, but it is not inherently evil. A powerful wand in the right hands (Dumbledore, Potter) is as capable of as much good as it would be for evil in the wrong hands(Gridlewald, Voldemort). This is not the One Ring a la Tolkien that is purely evil and will corrupt its user.

    He -DOESN'T- break the elder wand. :(

    @Rob Doesn't Harry fix his own wand in the book, then put the Elder wand in a safe or something so it will be in the possession of Death following Harry's *natural* death?

    @deworde Until another Voldemort comes along and orders his followers to search all over **The Forbidden Forest** doing *Accio stone* until they find a stone that doesn't move. I guess. Or something like that. Stone-goggles?

    @muntoo I love the idea of the Death Eaters doing Accio Stone and getting smacked by millions of pebbles.

    @muntoo, he fixes his wand it puts the elder wand in with dumbledore.

    @deworde That is why they invent a spell to direct all the stones to some other place. :) (Dumbledore does that with tons of water, IIRC.)

    I'm still not convinced that if you move millions of rocks around, that the tiny little rock won't move too. Also, it's the Forbidden Forest, they'll be eaten by Giant Spiders while playing their silly games.

    These are Horcruxen :-)

    Nitpick: if (big if) the plural of horcrux would have been derived from Latin, it would have been horcruces. (Most if not all Latin words I know with a nominative singular ending in -x are conjugated like urbs with x becoming c.)

    @rob ...or it gets the hose again!

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution


Content dated before 6/26/2020 9:53 AM