Lupin tells Harry that he needs to start killing people, too bad he never does. How anticlimatic Voldemort's death was.

I think the point is that Harry did everything he could to avoid being like Voldemort...thus never killing anyone.

Cause ya know.. Imperiusing and Crucioing (and meaning it, no less) people isn't Voldemortish at all...right?

When he started Imperiusing people, I thought for sure there was going to be a moment in the book when he had an internal conflict about how far he should go to defeat voldemort.

The proper verb is Cruciating, as evidenced by Carrow's use of the word.

That he just popped out an Imperius did kind of surprise me, especially once they were already discovered in the bank, and the same for McGonagall. It would have been just as easy to stun them in both situations, I think. Cruciating someone who just spit on your friend, with all the tension at that point, was a bit easier to believe.

Except that Harry failed to use Crucio on Bellatrix after she killed Sirius in OotP. I'd say being in a massive battle and seeing your God Father killed is a biiiit more "OMFGWTFBBQIHATEU" than spitting on a teacher you happened to like. But I dunno, I could be wrong. Harry is, after all, as emotionally stable as a psych patient.

1. The "unbeatable wand" is, by definition, unbeatable. How did Dumbledore beat Grindel-whatever in a fair duel when the Grindel guy had the wand? At first, I thought maybe he wasn't the wand's true "owner," since he just stole it from Gregoro-whatever. If he weren't the true owner, though, then Dumbledore would never have become the true owner, and by definition neither would Draco or Harry. Voldemort would have been the owner since he killed Greg.

2. Harry is Ted's godfather. Why doesn't Ted live with him when his parents die? Isn't that basically how godparents work?

3. What actually happened with Harry's wand acting on its own at the beginning and destroying Lucius' wand? I read the explanation and all, but it still makes no real sense.

4. Why did Voldemort's killing curse rebound? There is no defense against the killing curse - you can't just cast another curse and make it rebound. Also, there is no real precedence for wands just attacking whoever is holding them...how exactly did his curse rebound back to him?

I've already asked about 1. I don't know the answer to that, that's one of my hanging points.

2. His mother cast a protective spell, and as long as he lived with his mother's family in the Muggle's house, he was protected from Voldemort and his lackeys. If he had lived with Ted, he wouldn't have been protected in any way from a Death Eater trying to take revenge.

3. Apparently "natural magic" that doesn't really require wands-- something to do with the tie between Harry and Voldemort, as each contained components of the other. I'd have to re-read it again to be any more clear, though-- but it was something about this resonance that caused issues.

4. There also was no real "I'm going to take your wand and kill you with it," either. Wizards generally use their own wands, or wands that they have "made theirs". In this case, the "wand that chooses the wizard" decided that Voldemort wasn't its owner and Harry was, so it didn't kill its owner. Bye-bye, Voldemort. (Yes, not the best end to him.)

Derian meant, why didn't TED live with HARRY in the epilogue? Because Harry is Ted's godfather (Tonks' and Lupin's kid.) Nothing to do with Voldemort, who was long since re-dead by then. I guess his maternal grandparents just asked to take him in.

Ah, yes. Hm, that would probably be it.

Here's a question - why does Voldy's failed-yet-still-strong-enough-to-send-Harry-into-a-drug-trippy-near-death-state killing spell NOT count as a defeat for Harry, when he was practically just lying there until Voldy's entire gang decided to up and leave? Knocking somebody unconscious is definitely defeating somebody if disarming/wrenching the wand from somebody is. (ex. Draco vs. Harry, if I'm remembering it right) And if it's a "Surrender doesn't count as defeat", well that's just not right. On the other hand, if it's "It doesn't count if the other person doesn't fight back", then why would theft or surprise attacks count? I find it hard to believe that a supposedly all powerful wand of d00m made by some power-crazy wizard would rather choose the guy who, you know, didn't surrender or didn't fight. X.x;

The whole Dumbledore vs. Grindelwald thing

1. The reason Dumbledore could beat Grindelwald was because the wand was -not- unbeatable. You all are remembering the part of the story about them asking Death for an unbeatable wand. You are forgetting where Dumbledore told Harry that the Hallows were not actually given by death, but rather created by wizards. The story about Death is just that - a story. It would be impossible for a wizard to make an unbeatable wand, as its power is only as great as the wizards.

2. Alky, Voldemort did -not- beat Harry. Harry beat him. You need to remember that Harry allowed himself to "die" because that's what he had to do to make Voldemort mortal again. Harry was a horcrux, and, knowing this, allowed himself to be killed, thus making voldemort lose his immortality, and making him beatable later on.

Hm. Good point. I suppose it's like Harry hitting vitae while Voldemort somehow... ah... lost his familiar.
Yeah. Bad analogy.

Still find it weird though. X.x; Lose the battle, win the war situation. Though the wand is really smart if it recognizes that. Meh. If Voldy had just taken the time to, y'know, make sure Harry was dead... ah well. His fault, I guess.

I don't think the "unbeatable wand" was actually unbeatable, just really really strong. So Dumbledore was still able to kill Grindelwald.