PeterDavid.net

My wife and I both thought that Dumbledore and Snape had agreed to the plan to kill Dumbledore. First, Snape was under the "unbreakable vow" meaning that he had to do everything he could to help Draco, or die as a result. Second, there is a point in the book when Snape and Dumbledore are overheard arguing; it is not beyond the realm of reason to think that this is because Dumbledore had ordered an unwilling Snape to kill him. It's easy to believe that the reason is to cement Snape's position within the Death Eaters and give him a chance to help Harry when least expected in the final battle.

I'm not sure whether Dumbledore is dead or not, but I'm almost positive that Snape isn't a bad guy; I think it's all part of the plan.

When Snape's looking down at Dumbledore, Dumbledore's voice holds something Harry had never heard before: desperation. And Dumbledore's saying "Please, Severus, please."

Dumbledore had never been worried about his own death; his only apparent concern was the defeat of Voldemort. Snape is an accomplished Occulens -- Occumentor -- mind-reader. Seems to me that Dumbledore was projecting to Snape "Please don't blow your cover; if you do, the battle against Voldemort is lost. You must kill me, you must, so that we can win."

I have adored the Snape character as the most interesting character in the Potter mythos. Obviously having more layers to him than any other. The whole scene with him and Dumbledore on the roof, including Snape's reactions before and after the "murder" as well as Dumbledore's final words to a seemingly tortured Snape leads me to believe that this was planned, possibly as a contingancy plan should other steps fail. It seemed very possible to me that Dumbledore was pleading with Snape to follow through with it. While Dumbledore may or may not be dead, I have little doubtthat Rowlings is more clever than to simply throw away the character that has proven repeatedly since Book 1 that one should not make snap judgements about a person. The lesson would be lost if Snape ended up being a murderer.

I was a bit surprised that the Dumbledore painting did not interact with Harry, keeping the relationship going, dispite his death. It felt like an unexplained cheat for the reader, but it may be another clue that he still lives. *Wasn't 'painting Dumbledore' sleeping the entire time that Harry viewed it?*

Side note, the surgery on my back was labelled a "success". Iguess time and healing will tell whether I recover, but I'm hopeful. A very supportive and nurturing significant other, as well as MONK Seasons II and II on DVD, the last Bourne book (written recently by someone with theLudlum estate's blessing), and some half-way decent narcotics/pain meds have made the process a bit more bearable.

Fred

What?

Dumbledore killed by Snape?

How could you tell me this, now you've ruined the rest of my book.

thanks Peter

I'm inclined to think that Snape is still a good guy. I don't believe for a minute that he wanted to keep Harry alive so Voldemort could finish him off. If he were a truly committed Death Eater, I think he would have slain Harry right after Dumbledore, which he could have done very easily.

I'm fairly sure there was something going on at the end that was more than what it seemed. I haven't decided on what though.

What I can't get my head around is why Snape took the oath at the beginning of the book. He would have lost nothing by not taking it. No one was expecting him to. He gained very little, a bit more faith from the Death Eaters, but nothing more from Voldemort. Another major theme in the book, after all, was how Tom Riddle had no friends and trusted no one. Snape wasn't about to gain that trust no matter what he did. The only thing I can think is that he had some sort of affection for Draco's mother, much like he apparently had some for Lily Potter, because no amount of affection for Draco would have him make so binding an oath.

And in helping Draco to kill Dumbledore, he almost does the boy more harm than good. All of the other Death Eaters, no matter how fearsome or hateful, had held because because it was supposed to be Draco's kill. I imagine they were afraid to defy Voldemort for good reason and Snape wasn't doing Draco any favors by taking his kill. So if we're dealing with consistant storytelling here, the oath is going to end up doing Draco harm.

"Then again, she's the multimillionaire and I'm just some guy with a quirky blog, so..."

Hah! That's funny. Some guy my ass. I was waiting more eagerly for each new issue of Captain Marvel than any kid ever was for te new Harry Potter book

"How could you tell me this, now you've ruined the rest of my book."

how come you didn't read the part where it said spoiler filled?

I too, darted through this book in record time. (four hours.)
The thing that struck me though, is that if Dumbledore really is dead, then Harry doesn't have a hope in hell of destroying the other five horcruxes, let alone taking Voldemort on. I mean, the big D lost a hand to one of the spells on the ring horcrux; and he is the most powerful wizard ever. And even he says that if it wasn't for Snape he'd be dead.

So it seems that Harry's only hope is that Voldemort was so confident in his own powers that he didn't bother to curse the others, or that he has some realllly powerful helpers.

"Harry spends the whole book saying that he believes Malfoy is up to something and NO ONE believes him. Haven't we danced this dance?"

Well, yes we have, Mr. David. How 'bout all the other books where he ranted that it was Snape, or someone else, only to discover it was Quirrel, Voldemort, Pettigrew, Crouch, and then Kreacher who was the real bad guy/traitor? I mean, if he had listened to all the really smart people around him, he would have been a lot happier. The reason they didn't believe him this time was that he had a long history of being wrong.

I think that Dumbledore, being the amazingly powerful wizard, could have faked his own death. He might have been able to fake it so well that he fooled the Unbreakable Vow. I just really find it hard to believe that he didn't see something coming. He knew Malfoy was trying to kill him, so he should have been prepared to protect himself.

"What?

Dumbledore killed by Snape?

How could you tell me this, now you've ruined the rest of my book.

thanks Peter"

You did see the above reference that this was a "spoiler-filled" discussion? Caveat Emptor.

Or am I missing the internet sarcasm?

I have not read this series past the first 50 pages of the second book. Just not my cup o epic fantasy tea, although it sounds like it's developing into something I might enjoy on a larger scale. I've seen the first 2 movies, though, and followed enough discussions to follow along.

From this discussion, and things the author has dropped along the way, I'm wondering what people's feelings are on how this all is going to resolve? Rowling has me thinking that she might end the tale in a way that makes a lot of those people that have invested in the ride unhappy, and maybe her decision with Dumbledor is an indication of that?

Our theory is that Dumbledore and Snape had decided Snape would have to kill him to cement his place among the Death Eaters, and that's why Snape took the Unbreakable Vow. Notice how Dumbledore kept Malfoy talking, keeping Malfoy from killing him until the other Death Eaters arrived?

When Dumbledore said, "Please, Severus," I think he was saying, "Please kill me quickly so Malfoy won't." Because the other Death Eaters were egging Malfoy on to kill Dumbledore, and he didn't want his death on Malfoy's conscience. Just like a good teacher and the parental figure he always was. Also note that Snape does not try to kill Harry, only deflects Harry's spells while taunting him.

I predict that in the final battle, Malfoy and Snape will fight at Harry's side. Won't that be a kick?

Well, I think Dumbledore is dead, although his painting may end up being a Obi-Wan Kenobi type thing for Harry. But for this to be the Hero's Journey, Harry has to lose the mentor and forge on alone, one way or the other. C'mon, you've all read Joseph Campbell, right? ;-)

I'm warming to the idea that Dumbledore was pleading with Snape to kill him for Draco's sake, and to ensure that in the end he would remain in his place alongside Voldemort as a spy. But I credit Rowling's improved writing chops that it still could go either way and that she has spurred this much debate between the two sides.

-Joe

Count me out of the "Snape is REALLY good" group. Frankly, I figger that enough people would be amazed if Snape actually IS a villain/ not a super secret triple agent.
Dumbledore is dead. Philosophically, he's the opposite of do-anything-to-stay- alive Voldemort. He's had a full life and he's willing to accept passage into the next great adventure.
"Harry spends the whole book saying that he believes Malfoy is up to something and NO ONE believes him. Haven't we danced this dance?"
Here's the thing about Harry. He SUCKS as a character. His behaviour is almost entirely motivated by plot device. He must be trusting to advance the plot? He's trusting. He's got to be inordinately secretive so that the plot doesn't fall apart? He's secretive. It's not so bad in the last couple of books, but it's still there.
Can't believe he fell for the "influence by evil book" thing AGAIN....

Wonderful book.

After the monotonous, Reset Button-abusing Order of the Phoenix, Prince brought the series back to the familiar form of the first four novels, with mystery, important new revelations, permanent story developments, and growth. Even though I accidentally found out from a Spoiler Warning-free page on a website the identity of the Prince and what supposedly happens to Dumbeldore (Arrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!), and even though this ruined much of the mystery and suspense, it was still a joy to read that I flew through in what seemed like no time. By the time of Chapter 26, I was surprised to realize that I was down to the last 100 pages, and the last Act. It was definitely worth putting The Da Vinci Code on hold.

---The developments with Snape, Malfoy and the Prince book were great. Now everyone will be after Snape and Malfoy, and they will no longer be able to torment Harry at Hogwarts (I’m assuming that he will go back for his final year, despite what he says at the end), though I wonder if J.K. intends for us to know that Snape is innocent because of the Unbreakable Vow he performed in the beginning of the book. Then again, should he really have made that vow, knowing that it would eventually mean he’d have to do something like what he ended up doing? Or did Dumbeldore, who often seemed precognitive, foresaw his own death, or the need for it, and wanted Snape to kill him? I figured Snape told Dumbedlore about the Unbreakable Vow, so maybe all this was foreseen. I notice that the content of Dumbeldore and Snape’s argument near the forest, about which Hagrid told Harry, was never revealed. Since J.K. has always answered such questions at the end of the books, this would indicate that something that occurred in the book won’t be explained until the next one, another good argument for Dumbeldore’s death being fake.

---The revelation of the horcruxes were a nice development, and getting to see various points in Voldemort’s origin was wonderful. What also impresses me is that with just a paragraph or two, J.K. is even able to create another villain, one as terrifying in his own way as Voldemort—Fenrir Greyback. This gal knows how to write, and makes it look easy!

---What’s great is there was a genuine sense of development and change in the book, from the new Minister of Magic, to the new DADA and Potions teachers, Fred and George’s business, the new Gryffindor Quidditch team, the kids’ romances, the shock ending, etc. Because there was such a sense of moving forward, the end of Harry’s relationship with Ginny, while deeply disappointing, didn’t feel so much like a push of the Reset Button, but rather a logical choice that I previously speculated he’d have had to do with Cho Chang.

---And of course, the death of Dumbeldore. My initial feeling was that it was shocking when I read the spoiler, and it was heart-breaking when I read the story. And of course, Snape’s taunting of Harry when Harry tried to capture/kill Snape afterwards made me go “Ooh! Ooh! I hate that guy! GET him, Harry!” I hope Harry studies non-verbal spells and Occlumency more so that he can get Snape eventually. While the death itself was shocking to experience, I felt a certain feeling of logic inevitability to it, as Harry will eventually have to face Voldemort alone, which means that no matter what help he has up until then—Ron, Hermione, McGonagall, Dumbeldore, Hagrid, the D.A. club, etc.—he’ll have to be on his own during that final confrontation. J.K. should be commended. Instead of going for a fuzzy, sunshiney Happy Ending, she’s willing to show her young readers that the death of those we love is an evitable and natural part of life, and that we need to acknowledge that and move on, and with this, the most heart-breaking of the deaths we’ve endured in the last three books, J.K. shows her commitment to not glossing over such important lessons in life. Now I wonder if this value will be lost if Dumbeldore shows up alive in the next novel.

NITS & NOTES:
When Fudge visits the Prime Minister in the beginning of the book, he informs him that Sirius Black was innocent all along of the crimes he was accused of. But later on page 53, Dumbeldore tells Harry that Buckbeak’s name should be changed to protect him, since he’s been on the run since the end of the third book. Why is this? If Dumbeldore finally convinced Fudge that Voldemort was back, that Sirius was innocent, and since Lucius Malfoy has fallen from grace in being revealed to be a Death Eater, then why didn’t Dumbeldore also add that Buckbeak’s lunge at Draco was not serious, was instigated by the boy, and that the proceedings to execute Buckbeak were engineered by Lucius? Shouldn’t Buckbeak have been cleared just like Sirius?

When Narcissa Malfoy and Bellatrix first approach Snape’s home, Narcissa zaps Bella’s hand when Bella grabs her to try and convince her not to go there. Then, when Dumbeldore appears at Privet Drive to take Harry to Slughorn’s place, Harry notices that Dumbeldore’s hand is blackened, as if burned, with the skin ripped off. I figured this was a red herring by Rowling intended to make us suspect that Dumbeldore was Bellatrix in disguise, since I doubt Narcissa would’ve wounded her sister that badly, or that Narcisssa would’ve taken Harry without killing him, or for that matter, Slughorn.

Why is learning non-verbal spells depicted as such a new and difficult thing for students this year? The slug-vomit one Ron attempted on Draco after he called Hermione a Mudblood in Chamber of Secrets was non-verbal, and it only backfired on Ron because his wand was broken.

During Quidditch try-outs, Harry’s voice is rendered hoarse from all the yelling he does. Why doesn’t he just use the Sonorus spell?

At the end of Chapter 18, Harry senses somehow that Ron’s mead is poisoned before Ron even drinks it. How did he know this? The books never makes this clear. Am I missing something here?

Harry wants to know what the Sectumsempra spell does. Well, why doesn’t he just look up a Latin dictionary in the library? I knew what “sempra” meant (in part because I know Italian, and perhaps because I remembered the use of the rictus sempra spell from Chamber of Secrets), so all I had to do was look up “sectum” on a Latin translation website.

Dumbeldore: Alive or Dead?
David Haber makes a fairly good argument for why Dumbeldore is not dead, some of which Peter touched upon, at: http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/dumbledoreclues.html

I'd like to add another piece. As a lifelong superhero comic book reader, I more or less question virtually any death in fiction, particularly any where there are supernatural underpinnings or superpowered people running around. When Sirius died in Book 5, I rolled my eyes and said, "Not dead. No body. Sorry." (I was recently explaining to a friend of mine that if you have a body, that doesn't mean that the character has died, it just opens room for speculation on how it is that the character is alive, and when the character is coming back." Whereas, if there is no body, don't even bother speculating. The character just isn't dead. But my tune changed with Book 6. About the time they were going for the Horcrux, I was starting to think, Dumbledore seems to be acting strangely. It could be argued that he's been acting different because he knows his time is coming, and he's trying to get Harry prepared, but then Dumbledore said something which made me stop. He said, "Oho." Very minor, but something that I can't recall Dumbledore ever saying before, whereas another new character has been repeating it in EVERY single appearance he has had in the book.
I think that we've got a "Death of Professor X" scenario here. I think that Dumbledore and Horace Slughorn switched places. When he took the potion, Dumbledore was more or less stating how it was his fault, etc., etc. And yeah, Dumbledore has guilt, but I don't thinkk he has THAT much guilt. I think the one who has MAJOR guilt is Slughorn. Enough guilt to fake a memory. Enough guilt to sacrifice himself for the cause? Quite possibly. Slughorn can do illusion magic. We see it at the beginning when he either plays invisible or pretends to be a couch. Slughorn wasn't anywhere to be seen during the big fight at the end. Now, mind you, he doesn't APPEAR to be the poster child for courage, but still...

A few problems with this theory...
1) Slughorn may have switched places with Dumbledore for the horcrux scenario, but how would they forsee what was going to happen at the castle? (Unless Snape was giving them inside info.) Seems a big stretch.
2) I have a hard time seeing Dumbledore allowing Slughorn to sacrifice himself, even for the best of causes. Snape might go along, not Dumbledore. Which means that the only way that this could occur is if Slughorn and Snape were able to temporarily put Dumbledore out of action so they could proceed with this plan. Impedimenta, which explains "Slughorn's" absence from the fight, and after everything is over, he's able to move again. Even in Dumbledore's weakened state, it seems unlikely that Snape and Slughorn could get him out of the picture.

Still, whether the Slughorn theory works or not - I have a hard time believing Dumbldore is dead, because I still believe that Snape is firmly on the side of the good guys (whether they like it or not) and SOMEBODY that Harry trusts has to explain to Harry what Snape was actually doing in the end. Harry is not going to believe anything Snape says, and I think that Dumbledore would be the only one able to convince Harry.

My wife believes me (which is most important) but nobody else does. Oh well.

Oh, and because I believe Dumbledore is alive, it has convinced me that Sirius is dead. You can't have BOTH of them come back.

I've read WAY too many comics.

First off, I loved the book. It may be her best yet. It is going to be a hard two years waiting for the next one.

Count me in the camp that believe that Dumbledore is truly dead, but Snape is not a bad guy. I think that we are going to find out that Dumbledore was dying since the beginning of the book. Look at Dumbledore's hand. He told Harry that he would explain what happen to his hand and he never did. Dumbledore also was willing to sacrifice himself to drink the potion. My bet is that Dumbledore had a terminal condition and that Snape knew about it.

Lorin's theory and mine are not far apart. I agree completely that the "Dumbledore" who goes off the battlements had switched places with a fellow Hogwarts professor. But I don't think it was Slughorn; I think it was Snape. (I've been spinning this out for awhile in various parts of cyberspace; one of the summations of the logic is here.

Mind you, the points Lorin cites -- particularly the "Oho!" dialogue cue and Slughorn's skill at illusion magic -- are well argued. But I think it makes more thematic sense for the journey to the cavern to involve Harry and Snape than Harry and Slughorn (that it does not involve Dumbledore is pretty much given, I think).

The argument that Dumbledore has to be dead in order for the "hero's journey" structure to work strikes me as non-persuasive. Yes, Harry needs to triumph in Book 7 by his own actions, not via his mentor's influence -- but I think a major element of Book 7 will be that Harry has to rescue Dumbledore from Voldemort's clutches (since, according to both Lorin's and my suspicions, the "Snape" who goes off with the horde of Death Eaters at the end of this book is actually Dumbledore in disguise).

A couple of notes for Luigi-

The Buckbeak incident seemed out of place to me as well. I think a solution lies in the thought that the wizarding world, much like our own, places seperate premiums on human and animal life. When a dog attacks a human here in Georgia, it's generally "put down" without hesitation. We certainly allow much more room to maneuver when one human assaults another, whereas a raving pit bull is going to be executed regardless as to whether Bono is called as a character witness.

As for that non-verbal spell bit, I think focus and intention are key elements. Ron was so furious with Draco, so intent on hurting him in that moment, that the spell probably came out effortlessly. It's like the kid who apparated out of the vanising cabinet without having learned how to do it...I think he just HAD to get out because he couldn't tolerate one more second in limbo. The intensity of the desire just led him by the hand.

Now to test the plausibility of a theory. I was reading a JK interview lately in which she responded to a rumor that Luna Lovegood was Snape's daughter. Her final statement on the subject was, "Severus Snape does not have a daughter" (I think it's on her website). I thought this was a strange word choice on her part. Why not just say that he didn't have any children and be done with it? I've been thinking about this, however, and I believe that Severus might be Malfoy's real father. When I look back over the book, I notice that Snape exhibits a tiny bit of stong emotion every time he runs across the notion of Draco being murdered for failing his mission. This theory might add dimension to the relationships between Snape, Narcissa, and Bellatrix (i.e. Snape and Narcissa fall in love, Bellatrix convinces her to drop him because he's a half-blood, and the only perosn Snape feels he can confide in is Dumbledore) and adds a whole new layer to the Unbreakable Vow. I know that physically speaking Snape is far short of the aristocratic ideal, but people like Narcissa are attracted to power above all, and Snape has that in heaping buckets. Being rejected on the basis of his birth might also have been a factor in Snape's turn from the darkside, or Perhaps this theory is full of Skrewt dung. What do y'all think?

"Harry has to rescue Dumbledore from Voldemort's clutches"
I have serious doubts as td Dumbledore's needing rescuing. I have a feeling that he may use Snapes body to find out where the other Horcruxes are, but he will probably just walk out and not come back sometime. He can't kill Voldemort, since Harry has to do that, but he could start wiping out Horcruxes.

"I've been spinning this out for awhile in various parts of cyberspace..."

I read your theory, and it does work...except for "Snape" using an Unforgivable curse on Harry. Dumbledore wouldn't do that, but Snape, or Slughorn, might.

If you are right, though, I also think that Dumbledore might stay hidden as Snape with Voldemort, and then revel himself at the last moment to save the day. (sort of like OOTP)

Theory #1: Dumbledore begged Snape to kill him as he was going to die anyway (poison from the hand wound and all)

Theory #2: Snape's hand "twitched" when he did the Unbreakable Vow. Can you Occumens (sp?) a spell?

Theory #3: Harry is the 7th Horcrux. Voldemort placed a part of his soul into Harry when the spell backfired. That's why Harry can speak Parsletongue and hear Voldemort's thoughts (like Nagini the snake). Harry will have to die (or the Horcrux somehow removed) before Voldemort can be ABLE to be killed.

Just my set of theories.

Trace

I want to believe you're right - but I've hated Snape for so long that I have a hard time accepting he is really on the good side. The sheer cruelty he has dished out to the students is unredeemable/unforgivable. So if he turns out to be a triple agent, we still have hanging why he is so damn heartless and cruel.

I am on the side that Dumbledore had to die before the 7th book...but I also believe Harry will need to find some adult he can trust. There is only one likely candidate for that if Dumbledore is dead, and that is Remus.

However, several of the small things that have been pointed out that I missed in my first speed-through reading (and I've lent out my copy before having a chance to do the slow reading) give me hope that Dumbledore might actually be alive. But if he is, I think Snape was Snape, and was fooled.

Personally I think Harry's only got 4 more Horcruxes to destroy. Himself being the 5th, after all. Much more likely to pick up the snake-talk ability when you're carrying around a bit of Voldy's soul than from some pseudo-mystical falderall as a result of the spell that failed to kill you.

The question is, will there be some overwrought confusion in book 7 about whether he has to die before they figure out Voldemort got that bit back during being revived. (Thus the look of triumph when he realizes whose blood was used)

Lots of interesting comments...

There's a couple of areas that haven't been discussed yet, though.

1) Snape overhears the prophecy about the child who will be able to defeat Voldemort. This prophecy is made before Harry is born. But Voldemort doesn't go after him for over a year. So are we to believe that both the Potters and the Longbottoms were in hiding all that time?

2) Snape reports the prophecy to Voldemort, presumably right away, and then a year later, is upset by what happened? This is why Dumbledore trusts Snape? I don't think so. There's either more to this than we know, or there's some other reason for Dumbledore trusting Snape. My favorite theory, which I read elsewhere on-line, is that Snape made an Unbreakable Vow to protect the child. Why? Because he was in love with Harry's mom. How many times has Harry been described as looking "exactly like his father, but with his mother's eyes"? Wouldn't that just royally tick off Snape, to have those eyes looking at him from that face?

3) If Snape is really truly all-the-way evil, why did he not harm anyone else during that last battle? He stunned Flitwick (he's the one who went to get him, right?) and then used that to distract Hermione and...the other student with her (...lousy memory). Snape didn't attack anyone but Dumbledore, and didn't use any hard-core spells on Harry, pretty much just deflecting what was thrown at him, IIRC.

4) Dumbledore's dead. Accept it. I find it interesting that he may have somehow switched places with Slughorn or Snape, but this would really be coming out of left field. The only way we know something like this could happen would be Polyjuice Potion...which would be impossible to maintain without having the other person around. Remember, you need to drink it every hour. Maybe there's something to the Killing Curse blowing him off the tower, or the phoenix motif, but I think it would be too big a cheat to bring Dumbledore back.

5) About the Horcruxes...are we all in agreement that RAB is Regulus Black? Voldemort had 7 of them, and 2 are definitely destroyed (the ring and the diary). What happens when Voldemort uses one, does that drain it, or can it be used again? Is a horcrux what he used to survive when his attempt to kill baby Harry backfired? And if Harry is a horcrux, he's not a very good one--Harry fought off Voldemort's possession in the previous book. Personally, I don't think a living person could be a horcrux. Also, if Voldemort knew the diary had been destroyed, wouldn't he have had a new horcrux made to replace it? He's had two years since his rebirth to do it.

I'm with the 'Snape's a good guy, but Dumbledore's really dead' crowd.

I'd actually be pissed if he came back. He could (and probably will) come back as a spirit, a memory etc., but as a living, walking, healthy man... I don't think so.

To me, Snape has always been the greatest character in the Potter books (not to mention films). The fact that Rowling managed to keep the suspicions about his loyalties hanging until the seventh book is probably the best thing Half-blood prince has to offer.

Still, I find it hard to believe the series will end with the next title. Harry still has to destroy most of Voldemort's Horcruxes... and without Dumbledore's help, for that matter. They spent the whole book just to destroy one (that wasn't even there). Specially when you think harry just got hit butt kicked by Snape, who isn't supposed to have a fraction of Volide's powers.

But then, he could be hiding his stuff from everybody. He is a great Occlumens, after all.

Anyway, didn't really like the book. The weakest since Chamber of secrets, in my opinion. The ending is great, hectic and so on, but the core of the book isn't that interesting. I find that writing romantic teen drama isn't Rowling's cup of tea.

Still, to me, the most shocking revelation was the fact that the three main characters won't go back to Hogwarts the next year. Worse still is the fact that they only won't go to school because she invented that Horcrux thing, which was the poorest plot twist she ever came up with regarding the universe she created.

I enjoy those Slughorn theories, but I still don't think the guy's evil. Just a coward, or something like that. But then, he is vain, and ambitious, and Voldemort is in the best position to please those traits.

Oh, and that Snape-is-the-half-blood-prince thingy was way too predictable.

Cheers,

Like many, I read the book quickly, but don't have it at hand, so I may be missing a few things, but nonetheless, here are some more thoughts/spoilers/speculations:

1) When Harry and Dumbledore go to retrieve the Horcrux, Dumbledore has to down a whole lot of some bizarre potion so Harry can retrieve what's at the bottom. While we see the effects on Dumbledore, I don't think Dumbledore identifies the potion. (I was kinda expecting another instance of Rowling's nameplay nomenclature like "Polyjuice" or whatever...) But since we're not told what the potion does, maybe ingesting it had some effect on Dumbledore that lasted during the battle with Snape later...? Kinda a long shot, I know...

2) Fans have speculated that the "R.A.B." of the note left where the locket Horcrux was left is Regulus Black, Sirius's brother. I'm told that in the last book, an odd locket is described as being among Sirius's possessions. And from this book, we know that Harry has inherited Sirius's possessions--and that this Mundungus Fletcher character may have been stealing stuff from Sirius's (now Harry's) house. So it seems that the trail to at least one of the remaining Horcruxes had been foreshadowed quite a bit.

3) Despite the fact that we see Dumbledore die--and his funeral!--there's a part of me that wants to say not only that he survived but explaining it by saying "Yeah, but this is all magic!" I mean, I don't want to think Rowling would pull a magic deus-ex-machina, but she could. Maybe Dumbledore cast some sort of Crazy Magic Twin spell, splitting himself in two, so that Snape could fulfill his Unbreakable Vow by killing one of them, and leaving the other to continue his work.

For that matter, maybe Dumbledore already has something like this going, in the person of his established-but-not-quite-so-much-as-to-be-conspicuous brother...

Here's an interesting prediction for the future of Harry Potter!

http://www.livejournal.com/users/laurel714/254486.html

Over at http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/extras/aa-jointerview3.html
JK Rowling does say "Yeah, well, I think if you take a step back, in the genre of writing that I'm working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. That's the way it is, we all know that, so the question is when and how, isn't it, if you know anything about the construction of that kind of plot." There are lots of other interesting things in the interview as well.

I believe Dumbledore is dead, and Snape is still secretly working against Voldemort. I think Dumbledore's portrait will give some information in the next book. I think Dumbledore was asking for Snape to kill him. From the first book, Dumbledore says that death is the next journey for the well-planned mind or something like that.

I don't think there is any way that Draco Malfoy is related to Snape. The physical characteristics of Draco and his father have been described as much too similar for there to be any doubt. Yes, from Tonks we know that people can change their appearance, but I don't think this could be the case.

Now, JK could always change her mind about many things. Until we actually get the book in two years (or so) nothing is certain.

Neil

I'd come up with Regulus Black as RAB as well, but forgot about the "odd locket" mentioned above. My wife further speculated that Regulus could also have faked his death, alive and on the run all these years. If so, then not only would Harry have a welcome ally in his search for the Horcruxes, but also a tie to his Godfather (who I truly believe ain't coming back). A new mentor and "uncle" for Harry? To me, this seems not only possible but likely. It's a great way to tie both roles to one person.

I'm in the "Dumbledore is actually dead" camp, but admit there's something I can't reconcile with that: why does he send Harry to get the invisibility cloak before the journey to the cave? Dumbledore ought to have remembered that he told Harry to carry it with him everywhere that year...still, I don't think that you get the portrait, even sleeping, or the Phoenix leaving, with a fake death, or that a fake death would be consistent with JK's established level of authorial fairness.

I'm dead certain that Snape did it entirely at Dumbledore's request.

I'm also not in the Harry as Horcrux camp. My guess as to the last Horcrux: the Hogwart's official Golden Snitch. Based mostly on the dramatic possibilities of the last game of the last season being interrupted by a death eater attack, Hermionie realizing that the Snitch is a Horcrux and what the attackers are after, and a big no-rules aussie rules quiddich match as the second-to-last climax for the book.

I do still think that Harry's a metamorphmagus. [Tonks says that only they can change their appearances without using a wand. Harry changes his appearances, reversing even the most radical haircuts, without a wand and untrained in the first book.]. I'm beginning to expect that that will be the key to the ending--it'll look like Harry dies, but actually one of the others will have died and Harry will assume his identity to be able to live a more normal life...

Mark said:
Dumbledore's dead. Accept it. I find it interesting that he may have somehow switched places with Slughorn or Snape, but this would really be coming out of left field. The only way we know something like this could happen would be Polyjuice Potion...which would be impossible to maintain without having the other person around.

Not at all out of left field; there's so much foreshadowing and discussion of magical disguise in the book that it would be surprising if there weren't a more significant masquerade going on than Crabbe and Goyle turning themselves into girls. And there is a specific clue in that "Dumbledore" isn't who he seems to be in the prelude to the cave expedition -- he tells Harry to "fetch" the Invisibility Cloak, even though much earlier he'd told Harry to keep that cloak in his possession at all times.

Nor is Polyjuice Potion the only means of magical disguise available. Arthur Weasley mentions a market in Metamorph-Medals early on (the ones he's talking about are fakes, but there's no reason a genuine counterpart couldn't exist). Tonks has similar powers of disguise. Slughorn's illusion-casting has been noted. And if Dumbledore were an Animagus on top of everything else....

There's a line in one of Dumbledore's conversations with Harry that may be relevant here; he comments that being so clever, the mistakes he makes are therefore huger. I think this is part of the setup for Book 7 as well -- that disguising himself as Snape and insinuating himself into the Death Eater sanctum seemed like a good idea at the time, but will backfire spectacularly on him when the disguise fails -- and require Harry's intervention to bail him out.

////

I will actually be surprised if Our Heroes don't turn up at Hogwarts after all in the fall. Three reasons: 1) the subtitles of all the prior books are "Year X at Hogwarts"; 2) too many of the other characters -- and a couple of the outstanding Horcruxes -- are strongly tied to Hogwarts; 3) Voldemort's own attraction to Hogwarts, remarked on by Dumbledore, is likely to lead him there as well.

I think Dumbledore is dead, but I think Snape is still acting. Getting the trust of Voldemort and protecting Harry would be more important than Dumbledore's life.

John,

But, as far as we know (which means it's a cheap trick if Rowling uses it) the medals, or Tonks' or Slughorn's abilities don't change who they really are. (Honestly, all we ever saw Slughorn do was turn into a Slughorn-like sofa, right?) In fact, neither does Polyjuice Potion. I don't think there's any way to get around that Unbreakable Vow without actually having the real Dumbledore be dead.

As far as Dumbledore telling Harry to fetch the Invisibility Cloak, did Harry have it on him at the time? (My copy's been loaned out.) If so, isn't that then just another example of Dumbledore knowing more than he lets on, which he's shown plenty of in the previous books?

Wasn't Dumbledore's line about his cleverness leading to huge mistakes pretty much the foreshadowing for the apparent betrayal by Snape? ... Ah, but couldn't it also mean that having Snape set up as such a great spy has led to having to sacrifice himself to keep that great spy in play? Not that Dumbledore fears death, he's stated that many times (another clue that he's really dead?), but I'm sure he'd rather live than not.

And this wasn't brought up in the book, but is it possible that Voldemort wanted to come back to Hogwarts to get "his" basilisk?

Dumbledore's dead. While Rowling has had some misteps in the series, She's skilled enough to know that "well, he wasn't really dead" would be cheating, verging on "It was all a dream." A key theme of the last two books has been that sometimes Bad Things Happen. His death has to stand.

Relatedly, I think we need to trust Dumbledore's assessment of Snape. Snape as betrayer is 1. too obvious and 2. would negate many books of claims. Another key point of the last two books has been that the world isn't black and white, but is complex and full of shades of grey. That's why Snape is so interesting; he seems evil, but apparently is more complex.

Given these two points, I conclude that Snape killed Dumbledore in pursuit of a greater good. Snape's clearly the sort that would claim that the ends justify the means. If Snape genuinely believed that Dumbledore's death would better serve the wizard community as a whole, then I'm prepared to believe Snape would kill Dumbledore. It's also been suggested that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him. I'm willing to believe that as well. Given two possible explanations for Snape's actions, Dumbledore being really dead is a reasonable option.

Ultimately, the books are about Harry maturing and taking responsibility. Dumbledore's been a crutch for Harry for a long time. By removing Dumbledore we push Harry to self-sufficiency. Just in time for the final book. How convienent.

Unrelatedly, I'm sympathetic to no-one _appearing_ to trust Harry's assessment of Malfoy. His friends don't trust Harry because they're too close to Harry. To Hermione and Ron Harry can't be the Chosen One; he's the guy they hang out with. They knew Harry hated him since year one. As for the adults, those in a position to do something generally did. McGonagal passed the information on to Dumbledore. Mr. Weaseley re-searched the Malfoy home. Dumbledore appears to have had Snape watching Draco. I don't think it's that no one believed Harry, it's that the people who could do something about it failed to catch Draco. Given Harry's own ability to outwit the adults, can't Draco succeed once?

"I'm joining with the "I don't believe he's dead" crowd. Why? Because one of the main thrusts of the book was learning to THINK what spell you're trying to cast, without saying it. Which means that what Snape SAID wasn't necessarily what he was THINKING. And if he was thinking about some spell that simulated death, then the words he uttered are irrelevant."

[msm3212] While that's certainly a possibility, Rowling seems to have a certain respect for character deaths. I really don't think she intends to bring Dumbledore back in any way. That would render the death scene, and the funeral, rather meaninless from an emotional standpoint.

I mean, what it comes down to is that for Dumbledore to be truly dead, Rowling has made him look like an idiot for having defended Snape for the previous books. Which, if she wants to do that, okay, it's her call. But then it brings everyone else down a few pegs, not the least being Voldermort who feared Dumbledore above all others. If one man's death diminishes us all, Dumbledore's death diminishes pretty much everyone in the book who valued his wisdom and power. Which may not bother Rowling one iota, but it bothers me. Then again, she's the multimillionaire and I'm just some guy with a quirky blog, so...

[msm3212] You know, this response surprises me PAD. You recently chastised some fans on the Hulk message board for not seeing what you seemed to think was obvious concerning the upcoming Hulk issue (Bruce's old, forgotten college fling). Rowling has time and again provided sufficient justifications for a lot of the nagging questions that have popped up during the series. I would be willing to bet a bag of Big League Chew and my homemade (and screen-accurate) Proton Pack that it's not as simple as you describe, and that, in the end, Dumbledore's death will diminish nothing.

Of course, we won't know for a few more years...

Mark said:
Dumbledore's dead. Accept it.

To which I say, Ha-ha! NEVER!

'K, a few things.

1) Interesting idea of Snape being the impersonator. Don't think it is true, because I can't see Dumbledore losing his temper and hurting Harry like Snape did (though he was trying to protect Harry and keep him from using the Unforgivable Curse). I think that in the event the Slughorn theory is wrong, (very possible), I am almost 100% positive that Dumbledore then asked Snape to kill him, and Snape did it reluctantly. If the Slughorn theory is right, then Snape has some extra atoning to do if he survives Book 7. I don't think he will.

2) I didn't notice the bit with "Dumbledore" asking Harry to fetch his cloak. Cool.

3) The "Snitch as Horcrux" theory. I read in an interview that Rowling wrote her last Quidditch match in Book 6, so... I'm thinking the Horcrux is in the Sorting Hat or the Gryffonder sword, which will still bring them back to Hogwarts.

4) Having seen too many characters revived in comics, I can certainly appreciate how it more or less cheapens the "death story" to bring them back. On the other hand, if anybody can do it in a creative and effective way, it is Rowling. On the OTHER other hand (Tevye: "There is no other hand!"), if she said that she does not believe in bringing characters back from the dead, then I'm inclined to believe her, and my Slughorn theory is dead. Also, the Slughorn stuff I mentioned before may be entirely red herrings set by her.

5) Snape's Unbreakable Vow. My wife goes by the theory in regard to the death spell is that as long as you don't think it and mean it, it don't work. We both think that Dumbledore may trust Snape because Snape did an Unbreakable Vow to always follow Dumbledore's orders or never to harm Dumbledore. If one Unbreakable Vow cancels the other one's out...
Also, there is always the letter of the law. Finding a way to literally meet the Vow's requirements, without doing it in spirit.

6) Harry having to be the one on the final journey. I don't think Dumbledore being alive would necessarily stop that from happening. Let me put it this way. I think Dumbledore showing up as Slughorn would be a nice way to distract and surprise Voldemort, but Dumbledore knows that Harry has to be the one to finish it (and that would partially be his reason for faking his death) and Harry would be the one to finish it.

As much as I love the character of Dumbledore, I hope he really is dead. If he comes back in book 7, she might as well name the the thing 'Albus Dumbledore and the Forgotten Protagonist.' I think the Joseph Campbell reference is spot on- how much more diminished would Return of the Jedi's ending be if Luke had Yoda and Mace Windu backing him up? Harry's had his fat pulled out of the fire from outside sources long enough, he has to stand on his own two feet for the big finish.

Besides, wasn't the old boy was like, 167 years old or something? That's a plenty good run.

I don't think Dumbledore was impersonating Snape because of the way Harry related to Snape as the latter fled the castle. The dialogue was rooted in the pre-estrablished foundation between the two characters. If Snape was in fact Dumbledore, he would at least have offered Harry a clue.

But then, my own theory's a little out there too, so take that for what it's worth.

My review doesn't cover all the reasons why I love this book, but I'm also hoping that Snape does end up being the bad guy, either by choice or by tragedy. Having Dumbledore be wrong about one thing, about one very important thing, would humanize him.

Then again, that's quite a clever little loophole if a spellcaster can think one spell and say another. Sleight of tongue?

Here's an interesting prediction for the future of Harry Potter!

http://www.livejournal.com/users/laurel714/254486.html

Amusing but piffle compared the the true future of our favorite Hogwartians as revealed in the epic saga that is KILL HARRY!

http://kungfool.transpect.net/webpages/stuff/hk01.html

And yes, it's exactly what you think it is . . .

(And I've really got a lot to say about 1/2 BLOOD PRINCE. I'd just need to reread it quickly to gather my thoughts.)

I just finished the book, and my wife hasn't read it yet, so we haven't had the chance for the usual discussion of wild theories we have for each book. However, I would say that my first impression is that if Dumbledore is dead, he's "dead" like Gandalf or Aslan (or possibly Obi-Wan). The funeral scene actually seemed sort of perfunctory to me, rather than what you would expect from the death of a Great One in Harry's world. (Perhaps that's just because the stories are largely how Harry would perceive them, and he has a lot going on by the end of this book.)

Has it occurred to no one that even if Dumbledore is dead (and I'm one of those who believes unequivocally that he *is*--otherwise, why would Fawkes the Phoenix have flown away?), he may yet return as a ghost? In Book Five, there was an awful lot of attention given to the fact that Sirius could not return as a ghost. Attention could have been drawn to this so that the other major death, Dumbledore, could be subverted or avoided in this way.

Besides, who better to haunt Hogwarts than Albus Dumbledore? He'd certainly keep Peeves in line...

I got the sense from the above-referenced interview on Leaky Cauldron that JKR is happy to be done with writing Quiddich matches, and that Albus is really truly dead but that some sort of Dumbledore family appearance might occur. And with the phoenix symbology during the funeral ... perhaps Albus has been rather literally reborn?

Why can't Dumbledore have a hoarcrux?

Just a thought.

-- I agree that Dumbledore is really dead, though I think he will probably be seen in the portrait in book 7. Interesting how the former headmasters just appear there.

-- I don't think Harry is a horcrux -- wasn't Voldemort actively trying to kill him at the end of book 5, and book 4 too, for that matter? I don't think a living thing, if used as a horcrux, would be much use once it was dead.

-- R.A.B. can be Regulus but he can still be dead. His note & theft of the horcrux can predate his death, or even be the reason for it.

-- I really liked the stuff with Fleur and Bill at the end. I don't like Fleur much (and I really hate how Rowling writes out the way her accent sounds; it's much more annoying than it is with Hagrid) but she rose in my estimation and showed that she really loved him, no matter what he looked like.

-- I liked Lupin and Tonks a lot, too. I hope to see more of them in the next book. And Kingsley Shacklebolt, who just might have the best name ever :)

Why can't Dumbledore have a hoarcrux?

Just a thought.

--------

Because it would involve murder, and I don't see Dumbledore as the type to do it.

David

Great book.

Personally, I think Dumbledore is alive. I believe Snape and Dumbledore switched identities! Snape made an unbreakable vow when he joined the Order of the Phoenix. He made an unbreakable vow to Malfoy's mother. If he kills Dumbledore, he dies... If allows Malfoy to be killed, he dies. How does he win? Dumbledore and Snape use polyjuice and switch identities... Dumbledore (disguised as Snape)kills Snape (disguised as Dumbledore) and infiltrates the Deatheaters while protecting Malfoy. Snape's death = not breaking the unbreakable vow. C'mon, Dumbledore can protect Malfoy a heckuva lot better than Snape can.

I dunno about all the people who are worried about bringing Dumbledore back being a Deus ex Machina. There have been plenty of times when a major character has been brought back from the dead, and it looked good.

for instance: Spock, Gandalf, and Kirk (in Tholian space, and in the Nexus, as well as in the books Shatner wrote.) and Aslan.

In all of those situations, the revival was well done, and fit well into the plot.

personally, I think that this was DUMBLEDORE for the love of God!! If anyone could block/stop/deflect a killing curse he could.

and as for needing a wand to do magic, in the first book, there is a scene where Harry's broom goes nuts, and Snape is looking up at and muttering under his breath, apparently jinxing it (as it turns out, though, he is actually trying to save harry, but no matter.) The point is, both he and Quirrel (the actual jinxer) were doing magic without wands.

It appears that the wands might act more as focusing agents for magic, rather then the actual sorce of the power. After all, the main test of magical ability is doing something magical without a wand, (Harry's hair, the pane of glass, Neville's bouncing) and the wand merely brings it together.

As to spoilers, T-shirtHell.com has a great new shirt, black with green "Potter" font saying;

Dumbledore Dies on Page 596,
I Just Saved You 8 Hours and 30 Dollars!

Been waiting for this HP chat eagerly...lots of good comments. I think Dumbledore is dead; I hope Snape is bad, but fear he's actually good; I agree that RAB must be Regulus Black, but I'm sure Regulus is dead. I think Harry will end up at Hogwarts next year to put an end to Lord Voldemort...and I think he will have to sacrifice himself to do it.

RAB: If RAB is Regulus Black, he must have been more of a Death Eater than Sirius thought, to have found out about the Horcrux(es). I think that Regulus was killed by Voldemort because he found out that Regulus knew about the Horcrux(es).(Voldemort is "the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen," after all). Lupin mentions at Harry's birthday that he was surprised Karkaroff made it a year after deserting Lord Voldemort, that Regulus had only made it a few days...

The Potion: So Dumbledore could put his hand past the barrier with a goblet...why couldn't he just poured it into a different basin? Why did he have to drink it? That didn't make sense to me. And when Harry found out the necklace wasn't a Horcrux, I thought...Dumbledore didn't know what this potion was, so how could RAB know what it was and be able to replace it so Voldemort didn't know it had been tampered with until he went to retrieve his Horcrux?

The Cloak: When Dumbledore asked Harry to fetch his cloak, I assumed he meant his regular cloak...like the one you wear when it's cold outside. After all, this is Northern England/Scotland, and the Dementors are breeding, right? Or, alternatively, he may have just used the cloak as an excuse to send him back to the dormitory so he could say goodbye to Ron and Hermione, since it was so dangerous to go.

The Prince: I originally figured the Half-Blood Prince was Voldemort...but Snape fits too.

Dumbledore: I think Dumbledore is actually dead, not because of the painting or Fawkes leaving, or the funeral, but because McGonagall was able to get into the Headmaster's...well, now Headmistress' office. If Dumbledore wasn't dead, the office would have sealed itself against her, like it did to Umbridge in HP5. The arguement could be made that, as an OOTHP member, she and Dumbledore could have pre-arranged this, but the ancient magic in the Hogwarts castle leads me to believe he really is dead...even though I keep reading the book, hoping I was wrong the first 15 times I read it, and that Dumbledore didn't really die.

My hope for HP7-We don't have to wait two years or longer for it; and that Arthur Weasley becomes Minister for Magic, after Voldemort is killed. After all, they did win the Quidditch Cup in HP5. :D

So glad this thread is finally here. I'm in the not dead camp.

It seems to me that the whole point of this series has been for Harry not to follow in the steps of Voldermort, who was a loner and did things by himself so as not to share the rewards with others. With the ending he's already on that path, with a caveat - people are looking after him but he doesn't know, because if he did he thoughts could be picked up on by certain Wizards.

There is a reason Dumbledore trusts Snape and I have a feeling it has something to do with Potters parents.

After Snape "kills" Dumbledore and Harry gives chase it seems that Snape is going out of his way to hiss instructions to Harry on what he's doing wrong, why give hime tips if he hated Harry.

Also, the whole point of the book and Dumbledore's trust in Snape is beaten to death so that we will be "shocked" by Dumbledore's death. It was just a ruse. Snape can block his thoughts better than anyone and can cast spells non-verbally; I think he put the big D in a trance like state that resembles death but which can be reversed.

I enjoyed this book just as much as the other segments, have them all on audiobook,its going to be torture to see how JK wraps the story up.

Creating a horcrux you must commit murder ...like Voldie did when he killed Harry's parents. They make a passing reference to the fact that animals can be a horcrux, so why not a human.
Harry is the last horcrux....therefore Harry will realize during the final battle that he must die to end the threat that is Voldemort.

I am among the few that believe Dumbledore is indeed alive and well, that is unless Sirius makes a comeback...I'll leave the explanation to Ms. Rowling, but one of them will have to be back to explain to Harry how Snape really is a good guy. Harry will not believe it, as usual, but it will likely be Snape who figures out how to take the horcrux soul fragment from within Harry. Snape will then take Harry's rightful place and die to end Voldemort forever.

So to sum up
Harry is the last Horcrux
Snape is really a good guy
Dumbledore or Sirius will return
Snape will take the final hit to prove after all he was a good guy.

Then if we are really lucky in 15-20 years Ms. Rowling will take the path set before her by another fantasy hack, and give us some really crappy prequels. They will then be made into films filled with very capable actors directed to play chunks of wood.

Boy I can't wait!

I'm in the Dumbledore's dead but Snape's not evil camp, although I kinda wish he was a bad guy. I think the fact that he was continuing to teach Harry while he was blocking Harry's curses was a definite sign that he was a good guy, along with the fact that he protected Harry before finally departing Hogwarts.
That said, I'm reasonably certain Harry or someone else in the Order is gonna kill Snape for this. Just screams miscommunication.
I was thinking maybe Harry was a Horcrux, Dumbledore said that Riddle's non-chalant usage of the journal indicated that there were more of them. Well now that he had his body back and had other horcruxes why couldn't he just make more? What is losing one of his many horcruxes in the process of killing Harry, especially if Harry's his only real threat? Just an interesting thought.
My real question is what is the significance of their wands? Will they be able to really fight each other? Is Harry and Hermione gonna trade wands right before the final duel so that Harry can fight him? Is Harry just gonna haul off and hit Voldy? I can't wait for that...

I do wonder how in the world Harry thinks he even has a chance to defeat Voldy... I mean he stinks at Occlemency. Love? I just don't know how exactly love is gonna do it when you're getting through just on luck...

Best of Luck to him though, I'm gonna miss these books when there are no more... Ra!

"Will they be able to really fight each other?"

Sure, so long as Harry realizes that he just can't use his wand DIRECTLY against Voldemort. "Accio Tec-9!"

-Rex Hondo-

Another Snape theory to add to the pile. Snape was trusted by Dumbledore because of his love for Lily, she was his one true friend throughout his time at Hogwarts, both naturals at potions, she protected him against James and the rest etc. When Voldemort went to kill the Potters, his feelings for her caused his defection.

As to his killing of Dumbledore, I think it's real but was done for reasons not mentioned so far. Throughout the books, Snape has always accused Harry and his father of arrogance but I think it's one of his failing as well. The tone of his writing in the potion's book, the way he treats everyone who dosen't meet his standards, etc. When asked to make an unbreakable vow he arrogantly assumes that he will be to break it, trick it or anyway get out of it. The person casting the vow was Nigella and she wouldn't have left anyway wiggle room, Snape's hand twitched when she he made this vow because he was realising he was putting his lfe on the line. He swore that he would kill Dumbledore if Malfoy couldn't, and at the top of the tower it was obvious Malfoy coudn't. This was not because lack of ability or chance to, it was because Malfoy couldn't bring himself to kill, Snape found himself in a position where he must kill Dumbledore or die himself. He couldn't cast another spell to fool the vow as he would know the truth and the vow would then kill him. He choose his own life over Dumbledore's, he choose the cowards way out. This is why when Harry is accusing him of being a coward on the chase through Hogwarts he reacts with such fury, because he believes he is and can't stand his fault being shouted out at him. This also ties in with his arrogance being his undoing and his loss of his perfect view of himself.

He will redeem himself in the last book I believe at the cost of his own life, coming in to save Harry and giving him the chance he needs to get to Voldemort. I am quite looking for a scene where Harry faces Voldemort and announce he has destroyed all his Holocruxes and that he is mortal again

It's a gyp if Snape turns out to really be a villain after all the interminable chapters of Harry saying he is evil and then being proved wrong (again) at the end of every previous book. I for one hope snape turns out to be a good guy, would be too boring the other way. Though I agree with the theory that Rowling will kill him off for pathos in book 7 (dying in Harry's arms as Potter realises he was good all along... oh the humanity!). And I hope Dumbledore stays dead - we may as well just start calling him Gandalf otherwise.

PAD, thanks for starting this thread! It rocks!

Count me in with the "Dumbledore's not dead" crowd. Going through all of the posts, I've seen some very convincing evidence that goes both ways. What does it for me, though, is just the gut feeling I had at the end, when the Big D was saying, "Please, Severus...Please." Something about the way that was written set off my "this can't be really happening" alarms! Of course, that could just be denial. Guess I'll have to wait for Book 7 to figure out which it is.

You know something, I just realized that Lord Voldemort- oops, sorry, I mean, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, doesn't appear in this book at all, except in flashbacks or Pensieve explorations. Unless I'm misremembering. Now, I'm wondering what he was doing the whole time. He could have been out creating new horcruxes, but I don't think so. The whole horcrux scenario, at least to me, seemed to play out that 7 was the magically significant number of horcruxes and probably as many pieces as he could rip his soul into. Now that they're being destroyed, those pieces of his soul are gone, so he can't be creating new ones. At least, that was my interpretation.

On a semi-related side note, I'm loving the previews I've seen of HP4, coming out in theaters this November!

Bill

hrrrmm, I enjoyed the first 4 books, though I was so ticked after the ending of GOF that I'd pretty much given up on the series. After all, the whole freakin' book was naught but a ruse to bring Voldemort back to power, which was a slap in the face, imho. How many would have seen the last three Star Wars films, after all, had they been shown in their rightful order? Ok, stupid question... anyway, had not a co-worker let slip the big dramatic and tragic turns of this particular novel, I'd have not bothered reading it. Knowing what's up kinda preps one for the blow, which might be cowardly to some, but keeps their expensive hardback from sailing across the room, as Goblet did years ago. Yeah, I'm an emotional reader.

Anyway, on to theories... the previous "Dumbledore as Animagus" sounds pretty feasible, and his choice being the Phoenix would be, well, apropos(heh). A theory of my own is that there might be a flip-side to the hoarcrux spell, wherein a mage sacrifices his life, and places his spirit, entire, within an item. Like, say, that amulet he acquired at the end. And the mysterious R.A.B.? Here I've a long shot and rather juvenile idea, but going along with Dumbledore's possible covert tracking of Harry(like Harry'd misplace the item that supposedly costed D his life?) it makes sense. Take an A(lbus) and an H(arry), and meld 'em... somethin' like an R would appear, donchathink? And follow this with a D(umbledore) and a P(otter), and a B certainly seems most likely. Yeah, I know, everyone wants it to be Regulus... whatever, having skipped OOTP I'll have to say my understanding of the Black family legacy is rather limited. For Harry's sake, in the long run, I hope it's the case...

As for Snape, I can only foresee(not the Grim, dammit!) him turning into the true martyr of the story. And I think the next book is going to show how much one's perception of their parents is deluded, and we'll see that only after meeting Lily did James Potter become a truly caring individual. Which will also assist us in understanding why Snape carries such a grudge. I'm guessing James was only a LITTLE better than Draco, which, when revealed, will help Harry in sympathizing a bit with the Malfoy misfit.

Just my two knuts... i.e. pennies, and not those of a tenderer variety ^_^

Real quick:
I don't believe that Harry is the last horcrux; Harry's *SCAR* is!

Hooper

I just do not see Harry or any part of Harry being a Horcrux. If he was, then Voldemort would not be trying so hard to kill him. If Harry does indeed house a Horcrux, then Voldemort needs him alive to keep the Horcrux safe & sound.

As for Dumbledore being "dead & gone". All the other past Hogwarts' Headmasters are represented in paintings in Dumbledore's office, so Dumbledore should be as well. So yes he's dead, but he'll still be around....

Finally, Snape is evil. I believe Dumbledore had faith in Snape and Snape let him down. That doesn't make Dumbledore a fool or blind, just merely a poor judge of character. Snape played him, pure and simple.

HMC Said "Another Snape theory to add to the pile. Snape was trusted by Dumbledore because of his love for Lily, she was his one true friend throughout his time at Hogwarts, both naturals at potions, she protected him against James and the rest etc. When Voldemort went to kill the Potters, his feelings for her caused his defection."

I personally don't think the Snape/Lily theories fly b/c of what Harry saw in the Pensieve in OOTP, when Lily comes up to try and stop James from tormenting Snape, and Snape says, "I don't need help from filthy little mudbloods like her!" His hatred for her, and all Muggle-borns seemed clear, I thought.

Reading the page of "Dumbledore is not Dead" mentioned in a posting above, makes me think that perhaps Dumbledore isn't dead...but I don't want to get my hopes up in case he really is dead. There is an especially interesting quote from the book, that has a paragraph in the UK edition (and my own Canadian edition) that is missing two sentences that are included in the US edition. The two sentences are near the end, when Dumbledore is trying to convince Draco to switch sides.

There is also interesting evidence that may prove Snape is good after all.

Would recommend the site as an interesting read. www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com

The Potion: So Dumbledore could put his hand past the barrier with a goblet...why couldn't he just poured it into a different basin? Why did he have to drink it? That didn't make sense to me. And when Harry found out the necklace wasn't a Horcrux, I thought...Dumbledore didn't know what this potion was, so how could RAB know what it was and be able to replace it so Voldemort didn't know it had been tampered with until he went to retrieve his Horcrux?

I confess that I find myself wondering about this a lot. If RAB managed to retrieve the real Horcrux, then quite possibly the potion in the basin that Dumbledore drank isn't the same potion as Voldemort put there to surround the Horcrux. So the potion RAB put there might be different effect than the one Voldemort originally placed there.

I don't have a copy of the book at hand, but has anyone parsed the things that Dumbledore was saying while quaffing all that potion? If we can figure out what that potion was really doing to Dumbledore, maybe we can conclude that RAB intended for the potion to do those things to Voldemort if/when he ever tried to retrieve the locket Horcrux...

If Snape does turn out to be on the side of good, that'll suck, because it will basically mean Dumbledore was right...again...as he always is...

I like the idea of Harry as a Horcrux, and perhaps Voldemort NEEDS that piece of his soul back, hence the need to kill Harry...

"Sure, so long as Harry realizes that he just can't use his wand DIRECTLY against Voldemort. "Accio Tec-9!"

Check it out!

http://www.potterpuppetpals.com

Another speculation totally unrelated to anything else.

Malfoy was charged with killing Dumbledore. He failed. Voldemort does not treat failures kindly.

Snape has promised to protect Malfoy and keep him safe. There is only one way Snape can do this:

Send him to the Order of the Phoenix.

My guess: Next book, while Harry is setting up housekeeping at Sirius' old place, Malfoy is going to show up on his doorstep, all surly, saying "I don't like this any better than you do, but Dumbledore offered me protection..."

(Cue the theme music to "The Odd Couple")

Personally, I believe Dumbledore is dead, and Snape killed him. However, I agree that Snape killed him on Dumbledore's orders, not Snape's. As Peter says at the top, Voldemort doesn't trust anyone and he never will. He certainly isn't going to trust a spy that is a good enough Occlemens to fool Dumbledore. Unless of course, that person found a way to prove his loyalty above all others. That's why Dumbledore had Snape kill him, to save Draco's soul, to save Draco's life, and to trick Voldemort into actually trusting Snape. And that puts Snape in position to be the key figure helping Harry out in the endgame.
Dumbledore hasn't always been right. He's made mistakes, and he admits such at the end of Order of the Phoenix. But if he's wrong about Snape after six books of claiming Snape is on the side of the angels, then he's wrong about Love being the strongest magic there is, and that's not where JKR wants to go.
Something will happen at the wedding to convince Harry to return to Hogwarts. I also think the magical protection of Harry's at #4 Privet Drive will be sorely tested this summer.
I do believe Harry is the 6th Horcrux, but I do not believe Voldemort knows that. I think Dumbledore also did not realize that.

After reading it, I agreed with Peter...why the big deal about silent spells, if not as a disguise for a fake Snape spell at the end...and Rowling just isn't a daring enough writer to have Dumbledore having been a fool about snape all this time. So the pleading to snape was a code for "Do the fake killing me thing now."

Then a friend went thru the ->unbreakable vow->snape/dumbledore argument bit. and I've pretty much converted to the Dumbledore died side.

Dumbledore would sacrifice himself to save one of his students...which besides Harry includes both Malfoy and Snape. So, if by his death, he saves their lives, he's all up for that.

If dead, he'll clearly do the Obi-Wan thing, likely from the portrait-since Headmaster portraits are special, say how everything is true from a certain point of view, and that Hermione is Harry's sister.

The Slughorn Illusion theory is interesting though...and as for the poison that Dumbledore was drinking, I'm sure he had a bezoar, as one was pulled out of Chekov's cabinet earlier in the book.

My mom also pointed at Harry sees a phoenix shape in Dumbledore's funeral pyre...so maybe he comes back as slutty redhead...

As for the book itself, I thought it was awful in pacing...there was a lot of "Harry realized he hadn't seen Malfoy in months" "Harry kissed Ginny, and then several weeks later...". The entire Tonks subplot was pointless and tacked on. I suppose the bully who wanted to play on the Quiddich team was a good red herring for the poisoning subplot, but it ultimatly went nowhere. I always dislike when the book focuses less on the classroom elements. After all the strife about Snape teaching DADA, it might have been nice to see some of the classes.

An ok book, but too much focused on getting to the final bits, rather than on the story as a whole.

And me and the same friend had a chat whith a nice resolution to the whole Voldemort problem:

[13:06] me: one person with a revolver puts an end to all this real quick
[13:06] friend: All but Voldy..
[13:06] me: even him really...
[13:07] me: everytime he tries to stand back up after 11 years, just pop him again
[13:08] friend: after the shock of muggle-induced death the first time, he casts an anti-bullet spell as soon as he gets up.
[13:08] me: no wand...no spell
[13:09] me: it's a flaw in Hogwarts trained wizards
[13:09] friend: He can use any old wand.
[13:09] me: right..but you got the body there...you don't put any sticks next to it.
[13:11] friend: No body... jus a spirit. You need a muggle-designed ghostbusters spirit-trapping thingie as well.
[13:12] me: no. there was no body left time cuz of the curse backfire...
[13:12] me: this time, you got a body
[13:12] me: a new holiday..
[13:12] me: Cap Busting Day
[13:12] me: each year, someone in the wizarding world is chosen to bust a cap in his ass
[13:12] friend: But his spirit's not in it. He made himself a new body. He was "less than a ghost"
[13:12] me: cuz his body was destroyed
[13:13] friend: Still, a neat idea if you can work around that. Heck, you can create a body for him once a year.
[13:13] me: this time, it just has a bullet hole
[13:14] friend: Gringott's Cap Busting Lotto.
[13:14] me: there you go!
[13:15] friend: but I think the body thing still doesn't work, but heck, the idea's sound. Leave that detail for the engineers... or whatever the wizardly equivalent happens to be.

A theory of my own is that there might be a flip-side to the hoarcrux spell, wherein a mage sacrifices his life, and places his spirit, entire, within an item.

Well, isn't this kind of what Lily Potter did?

On another note, another element Potter-philes have recognized is that the saga's two major deaths thus far are Sirius Black and Albus (i.e. "White") Dumbledore.

So, if this chromatic aspect is to be followed, what other characters' colorful names might mark them for death? Well, there's Fenrir Greyback and also Rubeus Hagrid.

Also, some scholars of alchemy apparently claim that alchemal work is often described as having three stages: black, white, and red. Go figure.

And, heck, it occurs to me that the flag of Egypt is red, white, and black, too. Say...didn't the Weasleys take a trip to Egypt at some point? ;-)

Kurt said "Another speculation totally unrelated to anything else. Malfoy was charged with killing Dumbledore. He failed. Voldemort does not treat failures kindly. Snape has promised to protect Malfoy and keep him safe. There is only one way Snape can do this: Send him to the Order of the Phoenix. My guess: Next book, while Harry is setting up housekeeping at Sirius' old place, Malfoy is going to show up on his doorstep, all surly, saying "I don't like this any better than you do, but Dumbledore offered me protection..."
(Cue the theme music to "The Odd Couple")"

I figure this was meant as a joke, but the idea has merit; in the Unbreakable Vow, Snape did say he would protect Malfoy from harm, and there was no time limit set on the protection...and TOOTP really is the only organization that could conceivably protect/hide him from Lord Voldemort...

I tried to read the first Harry Potter, book a few months ago. I couldn't get through it though the book feels so...old. Maybe Rowling should have set the book in the 1940's. The only thing I could think of while trying to get through the first book was..."It is 2005, isn't it?"

Alrighty, I have to say that I'm currently leaning towards the "Dumbledore's dead but Snape's on the side of the angels" camp. Also, I have faith that if Dumbledore does manage somehow to come back, it will fit with evidence already in the books and not through some deus ex machina (magica?). She's done that sort of thing before.

Things that jumped out at as evidence on various points:

Dumbledore begging to Snape. Totally out of character. Albus was totally in control of the situation up until that point. Also, he would not, under any circumstance (I believe) beg for his life. He was pleading with Snape to kill him and go through with the plan.

Never finding out just WHY Dumbledore trusted Snape. Rowling has an almost compulsive need to explain everything. I'm sure we'll get that reason in book 7, at the appropriately dramatic moment.

At the funeral, we see a shrouded form, but not an actual body.

Also on the tower, Dumbledore says something to Malfoy along the lines of "They can't hurt you if they think you're dead."

Other random thoughts:

Somebody mentioned Bellatrix zapping Narcissa, which I had forgotten, actually. Could Narcissa actually have been Dumbledore in disguise, not the other way around, explaining the hand, as well as Snape's twitch during the vow? All part of the plan...

Snape's affection for, and desire to protect Malfoy could be explained simply as Severus seeing a lot of himself in the boy, and recognizing the path he's starting down and the personal ruin to which it can lead. If Snape truly has been redeemed, he would wish the same for Malfoy.

Also, if we now know that it's possible to modify memories, how do we know that what Harry saw in the penseive is genuine? True, Slughorn wasn't very good at it, but Snape would be MUCH more skilled. Perhaps it was a memory he had been working on modifying for Voldemort's benefit, and that's part of the reason he was SO mad that Harry saw it. This opens the possibility that Snape isn't such a purist after all and perhaps he really DID have feelings for Lily. Note, whenever he wants to snipe at Harry, he always makes comments only about his father.

I don't believe Harry is a hoarcrux. It makes very little logical sense, unless he somehow did it at the same time as his resurrection in book 4. Still, he seems selfish enough with his life that I don't think he'd risk putting part of his soul into somebody he'd have to destroy, especially since he tried to kill him IMMEDIATELY after he came back.

That's about it for now. Maybe I'll have more later, maybe not. Back to work, for now...

-Rex Hondo-

I keep thinking that Snape may have TWO unbreakable vows going. One with Malfoy AND one with Harry or Dumbledore OR someone else (Lily)?

It's important I think that Snape is most angered at Harry at the end when Harry calls him a coward. It seems like Snape has it the worst... betray the death eaters (his old comrades) AND betray Dumbledore (although I think it's part of a scheme) Snape is doomed to be mistrusted by ALL. Bummer for him.
Snape is not perfect. He's actually somewhat horrible as a person, yet somehow he has gained the faith od Dumbledore. I don't think Albus makes mnistakes like that.

It''s fun to talk about, though.
The replaced Dumbledore idea is interesting. Slughorn? Hmmm...
Anyway, if it's not clear, I'm in the Dumbledore is probably dead (although the whole phoenix thing puts that into question a bit) and Snape is not evil. He killed Dumbledore bevasue he had to to stay in with the evil ones.

Dumbledore is as dead as Elvis and Obi-Wan. Get over it.

To me, Snape's true convictions hinge upon the the House of Slytherin. For six years we've seen this place referred to as "a wretched hive of scum and villainy." And yet, the worst you could say about the Slytherin students is that for a time, Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle and Pansy Parkingson belonged to the Hitler Youth. Their allegiance to Gautleiter Dolores Umbredge was as passing a fancy as that similar alllegience was to the Pope. As was Malfoy's actions in the latest book.

So, why are the Slytherin in this saga at all? Their predilections don't line up with those of the other houses. Griffindor's are brave, Ravenclaws are smart, Hufflepuffs are drudges, and Slytherins are...powerhungry? Is being powerhungry automatically evil?

The most convincing evidence I've seen that Snape is evil involves the other evil adults in the series. All of them have been people above reproach, from Professor Quirrel to Dolores Umbridge. Despite everything nasty he has done, Snape has been held in high esteem by everyone. For him to be really good in the end...would be a complete change in Rowling's methodology. And she's not that ingenious a writer.

Ummm... Thomas, have you actually read the books. Snape was onto Quirrell from day one, and NOBODY liked Umbridge.

And besides, J.K. Rowling is at least talented enough a writer to keep millions of readers of all ages enthralled for six books (and counting), to have things figured out far enough ahead to mention little, seemingly innocuous things in passing that turn out to be pretty important a book or two later, and to drop enough seemingly contradictory evidence that we've already discussed and debated Dumbledore's death and Snapes guilt for HOW long now? (sorry for the run-on nitemare, but it's been a long night)

-Rex Hondo-

My thought about why Dumbledore is really dead - Snape has to stay alive.

I think Snape is Harry's secret keeper. Or not really Harry's but Aunt Petunia and/or Dumbledore's. This is why Harry has been safe at Privet Lane all those years. Remember, Voldie only found his parents because Wormtail turn tail and told him where they were.

Oh, and I think the last horcrux is Wormtail's metal hand.

His hand? Interesting. The metal hand appears in book four, but Pettigrew himself appears with his own mutilated hand in book three.

Seven horcruxes, and seven books:

1. Harry's scar.
2. Riddle's Diary.
3. Pettigrew's Hand
4. The snake Nagini.
5. The locket in the Black House.
6. Marvolo's ring.
7. Voldemort himself.

This seems almost too neat.

Well this is winging it, as my books are at home, but Peter Pettigrew's hand and forearm were cut off and tossed into the cauldron of potion used for re-animating Voldemort. After that event the evil genius called in the Death Eaters and proclaimed that this was how he rewarded faithful service - and the silver metal arm appeared where the flesh had been. This all happened just after Cedric's death.

A crime of opportunity, but still.

I'm still holding out for Harry to be the last Horcrux. That gives us:
the diary
the ring
the snake
the locket
Voldemort
Harry
an item of Ravenclaw

thing about it-V. kills James. Lily sacrifices herself, giving protection to Harry. This powerful magic warps Voldy's magic, turning Harry into a horcrux. Voldy tries to kill Harry, instant magical rebound. Voldy doesn't realize that this has happened-he's lost something every time he has split his soul, and it has taken a toll. This is why Harry has great powers and is a parselmouth, as well as being able to see into Voldy's dreams and thoughts. In the end, either Harry must sacrifice himself to destroy Voldy (she has always said that she can't promise he'd live through the last book) or else find a way to remove the piece of Voldy's soul from him.

I think the horcruxes are in Sirius' house, placed there by Regulus before he was killed.

Snape isn't good, but is on the side of the angels this time. He did kill Dumbledore, at Albus' pleading. Just my two cents.

Rex Hondo, yes ,I read the books. But...if Snape saw through Quirrel, he didn't do much but "give a warning." That suspicion didn't carry through to any of the other teachers. Snape didn't do very much except intimidate Quirrel, which didn't last. And although none of the teachers liked Umbridge, the Ministry of Magic sure did...

Basically, Rowling is following the pattern that people who are well-regarded in the wizarding community (the aforementioned two, the fake Mad-Eye Moody, Crouch and more) are either out-and-out evil or have secrets in their past that force them to do evil acts. People who are suspicious are often doing the work of good - Dumbledore has been a thorn in the side of the Ministry, Hagrid frightens many because of his half-giant heritage, and need I mention Sirius Black? No, but I should mention Harry, who in his most active books (from 2 on) has been suspected by the Ministry of Magic. His reputation was backstabbed by The Daily Prophet as effectively as Bill Clinton's by the New York Whore Times, and for as little reason.

Given that basis, which I don't think Rowling has strayed from, Snape is almost certainly evil, because everyone approved of him at the school, including Hagrid, McGonigal and Dumbledore. The kids mostly dislike him (except the Slytherins), but who cares what kids think? Even if they turn out to be right? Nobody in the wizarding world, that's for sure.

But you're shifting your definition of "the wizarding world" from the Ministry (Umbridge) to the Hogwarts staff (Snape). If a pattern exists, it's more that those approved by the outside world but not by the Hogwarts staff are the ones likely to be untrustworthy. Dumbledore, Sirius and Hagrid are distrusted to some degree by the Ministry and the wider wizarding world, and are trustworthy; Umbridge and Lockhart are approved of by the wizarding world and disliked by the Hogwarts staff, and are untrustworthy. Under that pattern, Snape must be trustworthy. (I don't think we know enough about how the rest of the staff regarded Quirrell to count him; the fake Moody was using someone else's reputation, but he wasn't universally approved of either--McGonagall came down on him for his punishment of Malfoy, for example.)

Also, there's a difference between "approved of" and "trusted." All the people mention trusted Snape as an anti-dark wizard, but they didn't necessarily approve of all his actions (there's evidence that McGonagall doesn't like the favoritism he shows Slytherin but is too professional to say so in front of the students, for example).

Besides, if we apply your shifting definition, Professor Flitwick must be evil, right? No one's ever said a bad word about him...

I always thought Dumbledore would be one of the characters to die in the series. I believe he is dead, and I don't think Rowling will pull a Gandalf or comic book-like ressurection. It would cheapen the character, and what he has stood for. He has made mistakes before, but he's not feeble enough to have misjudged Snape. I also think Dumbledore could have mopped the floor with all of the Death Eaters on the tower, wand or no wand, weakened or not. He as much told Malfoy that he had Dumbledore's mercy, and was not in control of the situation. Dumbledore would NOT plead for his own life, but for Malfoy's. The Unbreakable Vow was probably approved by Dumbledore from the start. And I think Dumbledore achieved what he sought for Harry -- a tiny spark of pity for Malfoy.
I believe Snape had a secret love for Lilly since she was kind to him -- even if he called her a mudblood -- he was embarrassed at the time by her boyfriend.
And R.A.B.?
Black's brother, maybe. Good as any guess right now. But I bet he/she/it was a former Death Eater, since the salutation in the note refers to Voldemort as the "Dark Lord." Don't Death Eaters only call him this?

Bob, you make some good points, and raise a new spectre. It may be that Rowling wants to be quit of Harry Potter himself at the end of this book. But she doesn't want to give up on the biggest winning event of her life - who would?

So, RAB (who I suspect is Regulus Black - note how Rowling specifically avoids mentioning the Black family name anywhere near there?) has managed to take one of the Horcruxes. In other words, there are traitors among the Death Eaters - not ones who want to betray Voldemort to the Ministry, but ones who want to use him as a stepping stone to their own schemes.

Which means that, even if Potter dies or if Rowling no longer writes about him, there will continue to be intrigues in the wizarding world. Which Rowling can license to other writers (taking a lion's share of the profit) in the same way that Lucas has made a cottage industry of Star Wars.

Meaning...perhaps our favorite Writer of Stuff might get to write a book in the Potterverse. Even though he wouldn't make as much money as if Rowling were to write a book in the Apropos-verse.

Someone answer my rather obvious question: is the Harry Potter series of books something an adult would enjoy? I've thought of buying the first volume just to sample it. The whole series would require quite a time commitment. I've yet to read Tolkien's Rings trilogy for the same reason, although I've enjoyed his short stories.

"Someone answer my rather obvious question: is the Harry Potter series of books something an adult would enjoy? I've thought of buying the first volume just to sample it."

Yes. Many, mnay adults that I know enjoy the book. Heck, most (if not all) the people posting in this thread are adults. But you are right, they can get really expensive, money and time wise. My recomendation: Library. If you read a lot you can get through them pretty well, but they are a major time commitment no matter what.

Snape is not the enemy. Dumbeldore is *not* dead

You all should take a minute to see how the "killing curse" is spelled in the first 5 novels and then compare that to the spelling of the curse that Snape used on Dumbledore. You might find something intersting.

Jim "Spoon" Henry

Hi Jim,

I hope you're wrong about Snape, but I have an eerie feeling about Dumbledore. I haven't checked the spelling as you describe, but the "Abracadabra" curse seems like it should kill without dropping victim, Out of Sight of everyone, to their death.

The pictures of the Potter-verse seem more like trapped ghosts than just moving paintings, that may be the key clue that Dumbledore is actually still alive, or the key way he continues to help and mentor Harry...

Say has anybody thought that Dumbledore might have been killed off since Richard Harris died? I know that Harris was replaced, but it is not the same.

I have read all the books as an adult and so has my wife and we love them. I've bought all of the older books for a dollar or two used and then buy the new ones on deal. They don't take very long to readm so time shouldn't really be an issue.

"You all should take a minute to see how the "killing curse" is spelled in the first 5 novels and then compare that to the spelling of the curse that Snape used on Dumbledore. You might find something intersting."

I just compared it to the climactic death scene in The Goblet of Fire, and it looks the same to me. Where exactly did you spot the discrepancy?

Say has anybody thought that Dumbledore might have been killed off since Richard Harris died? I know that Harris was replaced, but it is not the same.

Eh. I kinda doubt it. I have enough faith in Rowling to think that she's not being unduly influenced by the movies when it comes to writing her books.

Which is not to say that I wouldn't be amused should Rowling write into Book 7 a crucial scene between Gilderoy Lockhart and Professor Trelawney, to see whether or not Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson would actually share screen time again...

Dumbledore is dead....that would be a terrible cheat, to put us all through that in Book 6, and have him turn up alive. And Sirius is alive, and all is peachy! No, Rowling hasn't done that to us yet, and she won't. I hope.

My Snape theory: after Dumbledore's injury, and prejudiced as he is against Potter, Snape decides that he himself is the only one who can defeat Voldemort, and to do that he must get the Dark Lord's confidence by killing Dumbledore. It's part heroic, part getting glory for himself, and it will backfire. Although Rowling will probably write it better than that.

Why has no one else guessed why Harry was so nasty in Book 5? It is because he was in Voldemort's head, and vice-versa. Besides being 15, Harry was also getting some of Voldemort's own emotions, and that spilled over into sullenness. Very simple.

I tend to think Book 7 will feature many things, including final battles, like Lupin taking on Fenrir Greyback, Hagrid and Grawp battling a giant or two, and a general showdown between the Order and the Death Eaters, finishing the battle joined twice already. And of course, after destroying (with Ron and Hermione's help) the other horcruxes, Harry must battle...Voldemort. At Hogwarts, the "home" of them both. Voldy will come in and try to take the school for himself, turning it into a haven for dark arts.

But I'm sure Ms. Rowling has in mind something that will be even better. I haven't yet been disappointed.

I said:
"You all should take a minute to see how the "killing curse" is spelled in the first 5 novels and then compare that to the spelling of the curse that Snape used on Dumbledore. You might find something intersting."

Posted by: David_cgc at August 13, 2005 09:06 PM said:

I just compared it to the climactic death scene in The Goblet of Fire, and it looks the same to me. Where exactly did you spot the discrepancy?

I reply:
Ooops. I believe I may have to retract my "discovery." I had a summary of the first 4 novels with me after I finished the HBP prince and looked at it. Apparently the summary/analysis I was using had it spelled wrong. I really should have gone to the source material. Summary/analysis had the curse spelled
"Avada Kadavra". Thus, when I compared the spelling with Avade Kedavra (in the HPP)I thought there was a clue/discrepency.

I should reallly make sure I double check my source material before I post my big mouth.

Jim

Note to the guy who hadn't read the fifth book:

I'm pretty sure that the fifth book was where there was a scene where Harry got to see his parents at Hogwarts - including some interaction between them and Severus. And what I recall was that James was one of the "cool" kids, and Severus was his favorite target to make fun of and play practical jokes on.

Since reading that scene, I have hoped that Harry would get it through his head that Snape's dislike of James was based on something real, something that his father was responsible for, in a way. A scene where Harry actively wanted to set things right with Snape would be powerful.

Of course, for that matter, I've hoped for some sort of transformation for Draco; which the sixth book seems to lay some groundwork for.

RD Francis

Dumbledore is only "mostly dead." He's blaving, as in, 'to blave.'

"Why has no one else guessed why Harry was so nasty in Book 5?"

Umm... There really wasn't any guessing to it. It's so blatantly obvious that most people don't bother mentioning it any more. Of course, I seemed to be one of the few at the time that thought it was actually a rather good portrayal of 15 year old angst. *shrug*

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Sasha at August 10, 2005 03:32 PM
A theory of my own is that there might be a flip-side to the hoarcrux spell, wherein a mage sacrifices his life, and places his spirit, entire, within an item.

"Well, isn't this kind of what Lily Potter did?"

I see the similarity, but I don't mean turning a killing curse back onto the caster in the sacrifice, but placing one's spirit into an item willingly. Such as if Snape did a false curse, while Dumbledore worked a spell allowing him to possess the amulet. Dunno, just a thunk o' me own...

Grazi, RD Francis, I wasn't aware how much backstory was given in OOTP. Kinda figured there was something more real to Snape's grudge than a pissant needing to get pissy.

Here's yet more mental flatulence of my own devising, but has anyone thought how interesting it'd be if Herimone's S.P.E.W. crew actually helped turn the tide against Voldemort? Those little fellas are freakin' POWERFUL, which might be why they prefer a life of servitude, takin' the Zen path that control is but illusion. heh, ok, maybe not.

True Rex, and besides, Dumbledore alluded to it in Book 6, but I've said for a while that with the childhood Harry had the Dursly's hands, I'd expect him to be more like Draco (hates them stupid muggles) or Crabbe and Goyle (intellectually stunted and mean) or even Voldemorte himself...

This book made me realize the answer to something that had been nagging at me. At the end of the first book, Dumbledore reveals that Snape had been trying to *protect* Harry all through the book, out of a sense of responsibility because Harry's father had once saved Snape's life.

But in AZKABAN, when Harry throws this in Snape's face, Snape replies that it was James and his friends who had put him in danger to begin with, suckering him into investigating the Shrieking Shack while Lupin was dealing with "his furry little problem".

So why did Snape feel obligated to protect the son of a man he hated? Dumbledore's explanation, although not *technically* a lie, seems inadequate.

This book presents a more plausible reason. Snape's obligation came out of guilt he felt for telling Voldemort about the Prophecy and thereby leading to James and Lily Potter's deaths. As has been suggested, I think Snape was in love with Lily. (To which my wife said "No duh, of course he did!") I think that is why he turned against Voldemort in the first place and why he was protecting Harry in the first book; and that in his backhanded antagonistic manner, he's trying to force Harry to become a strong enough wizard to take care of himself.

Has anyone given any thought to the notion that Voldemort's death might not be the end of the story? I have my own theory on the matter, but I have little doubt that a large group could do a better job of finding evidence/knocking holes in it than I am able with my set of books inaccessible at present. I'd love to hear your comments.

Is this thread still going? Is it too late to post?

Anyway, I really do enjoy the HP books, but one thing that bothers me, that I haven't seen anyone comment on, is how *mediocre* Harry seems to be as a wizard.

We never see Harry do anything other than basic spells without heavy outside help. This is usually Hermione, but also has been Remus (with the dementors) or Snape's textbook (in Potions class). Worse, he doesn't even seem to *want* to be great. (I'll return to this in a bit.)

Compare this with Tom Riddle, or Snape at Haryy's age (creating spells and basically revolutionizing Potions), or James Potter and his friends (creating the Maurader's Map), or even the twins (coming up with all sorts of new objects for their shop).

Harry, on the other hand, blows off most of his studies, and shows no interest in doing anything but doing the bare minimum of requirements. The one exception that springs to mind is the dementor spell. Of course, that was simple self-preservation. Which raises the question: Since Harry believes he has to face Voldemort one-on-one, why doesn't he, you know, try to become better?

This mediocrity is reflected in his encounters with villains. In almost every face-off (again, except the dementors), Harry has survived more by blind luck or timely assistance (basically the same thing) than by any sort of skillful wizarding.

Hermione and Ron defeat most of the traps in book 1. The phoenix arrives in book 2. Hermione has her time thing in 3. The ghosts come out of the wand in 4. The Order and Dumbledore arrive in 5. In 6, Harry basically does squat to affect anything, and Snape could have easily taken him out had he wanted to.

This is not to say Harry has no good qualities. He's very brave, obviously. He attracts loyal friends (and ones who are actually good wizards). He's a good broom rider, and the couple of spells he has down, he can do *really* well. (The patronus and disarming spells, for instance.)

All this is to say that I think Snape's description of Harry at the beginning of 6 is spot on.

Given all this, I don't really think it's plausible for Harry to face Voldemort next book, and have any sort of reasonable chance. I know it's supposed to be an uphill battle, but I don't feel that Rowling has shown us that Harry even has the *potential* to be in the same league as the really good wizards.

If Harry turns out to be suddenly great next book, I don't feel that Rowling would have earned that. Thoughts?

I think that one of Harry's strength is his willingness to enlist help when needed. It's part of his attribute of the ability to Love that Dumbledore talks about.
But Harry is shown to have enormous potential. His patronus is extraordinary, right? He survived Voldemort, right (I know as an infant, but still it shows his potential and inborn strength) He also is an excellent quidditch player which is valued in the wizarding world.
He is not terrified of Voldemort, which makes him braver than most all other wizards.
I think that Rowling is building up to show Harry's greatness, but if he was a super kick-butt wizard all the time, some of the fun would be missing, wouldn't it?
Do great wizards have luckiness as an attribute?

I think that Rowling is building up to show Harry's greatness, but if he was a super kick-butt wizard all the time, some of the fun would be missing, wouldn't it?

My point is, I guess, that I can't really see *any* build up in Harry's abilities. At least, any build-up beyond his peers. He seems just as good as anyone else in his class, and worse compared to folks like Hermione or the twins. I keep waiting for him to do something impressive, as opposed to lucking out.

Hey, no one has talked about horcruxes or R.A.B.

I think harry is the last horcrux,gaining a piece of voldemort's soul when the lightening bolt incident happened that's how come they have a physicic connection. I believe Voldemort doesn't know this since DD said a person doesn't necessarily know their horcrux is destroyed. It would also fulfill the prophecy, since one can not exist without the other. I believe that DD has to be dead, he was prepping harry for his death the whole book and has given him all the tools of compassion and love needed to defeat Voldemort and rise above his pain and need for revenge (like DD said, love and compassion is the key) and Harry has all the insight into Voldemort's life, to make him see that Voldemort is not really a bad guy, just a misguided child. If harry is to do this, in true saviour fashion, he must do it on his own so that he may become the one Voldemort fears most and show that he has truly learned from dd's guidance and instead of fighting for revenge, he must show compassion enough to sacrafice himself for the greater good (a wizard christ/neo figure)and kill himself to destroy the last part of V's soul within him and let V ride whole into the afterlife, as well as let the wizard world being free from V's tyranny.
That's what I think and I think R.A.B is Regulis Black, Sirius's great grandfather on the wall in DD's office.
Thanks,
Aaron

Aaron, there is a pretty lengthy discussion focusing on horcruxes and the theory that Harry is one of them farther up in this thread. You have some here who agree with you.

Fred

Lorin-about thinking that slughorn and dumbledore switched places, i think ur right...but still, im going to have to go back and read it...anyway, dumbledore isnt dead, im 60% sure of that, as for snape being part of the plan, thats a defiant(99.9999%)

harry cant be a horcruxe, dumbledore himself said something living cant be

Well, at first i thought R.A.B was Regulas Black, but now that everybody has it,wouldnt it be a little to obvious? Would J.K really making something that easy to figure out? i think theres going to be a loop (sp) somewhere about r.a.b
Oh and the locket that was fake, well maybe if r.a.b is regulas black, in ootp, harry found a locket at grimmuald place he couldnt open, could that be the real one?

why don't you simply wait for the next book? rowling herself doesn't know how the story ends....

uh, hey. I haven't read the 5 book in a while but don't they find a cup thats glued to the cabinet as well as the locket? And when dumbledore is found and the bottom of the tower, why is the locket in his hand? And why wasn't his body crushed to bits by the fall? It could have just greusom for jk to want to print but couldn't it still make a diference? And I think the fact his bodys covered makes a big difference, you dont know whats really under there...

I have just surprised myself by reading the entire thing yesterday! A cracking yarn, better by far than the cheesiness and melodrama of book 5, although there was still a briefly cheesy moment of talking about how wonderful love is, and how Harry can love, etc etc aren't flowers wonderful. I thought the teen relationships subplots were great, especially Ron hiding from Lavender, and then eventually getting her to dump him. Very funny.

My predictions:
Dumbledore is dead.
Snape is good.
Sirius is not dead (not gone, at least).
Draco will join forces with Harry.

Character analyses:
Snape - He is 100% on the good side. As a boy he was very able, but being withdrawn and a bit of a geek he got bullied and his talents weren't acknowledged, making him extremely bitter. He is now entrusted with one of the most important roles in the fight against Voldemort, although by its very nature this role is secret. This means his continued unacknowledgement and thus his continued bitterness. Hence his anger when Harry calls him a coward - he has been called a coward (or suchlike) all his life, and just when he is proving that he is not, the Chosen Glory Boy calls him a coward again! So Snape hates Harry, his father and almost everyone else for being popular, but he is still on the good side. A true hero - doesn't let his personal feelings get in the way of his morals.
Draco - He has only been bad because of his family tradition and a sort of childish way of being cool. He is not actually evil (as seen by his inability to kill Dumbledore). He virtually says as much when he says that Voldemort has threatened his family. He is only responding to outside pressures (e.g. weight of expectation from his family) but he will overturn these in the 7th book, team up with Harry and... they'll move to Soho together? Um, well, probably not! but I reckon he will ultimately prove useful in defeating the Dark Lord.

Further points in reaction to previous discussions:
It is Bellatrix who gets burnt, not Narcissa.
Dumbledore's dead body is actually described: he has his arms and legs at a "strange angle", glasses askew and Harry wipes blood from his mouth.
RAB: anyone but Bones!
Yup, shame about the unconvincingness of the Tonks/Lupin thing, but then Rowling only had 600 pages! Give the girl a chance! She can't fit every lovelife subplot in.
Dumbledore/Snape swap: nope. Definitely not.
Dumbledore/Slughorn swap: hmm, interesting.

Wild theory:
Snape is Draco's father. Evidence: very close to Narcissa; he is whom she turns to for help with Draco; not much else, just a hunch I have!

'Dumbledore lives': it never explicitly says that Dumbledore is dead. It infers it by talking about his body, and by having characters say that he is dead, or have feelings in reaction to the knowledge that he is dead, and of course the phoenix that Harry glimpses might be a clue...
BUT... I think that he is dead. Agreeing with a previous post, the whole point is that Harry has been protected all through his development, and now he must succeed on his own.
Comparisons to Gandalf are not really very apposite: with Gandalf, there was no body, and he didn't show up in the end to save the day, but in the very next book, whereupon he continued to contribute a great deal to the action.

Basically there is deliberately no conclusive evidence in the book to say whether Dumbledore is dead or not, as it is a great topic of discussion to keep people going until the next one - a cliffhanger, if you like. So the most definite thing you can say is, "I have a gut feeling that he is dead/alive*" (*=delete as applicable). You'll just have to wait! In the meantime I recommend Terry Pratchett.

DUMBLEDORE ISNT DEAD... (any questions? email mark_smyth3095@hotmail.com)
DUMBLEDORE PLANNED HIS DEATH
• Why did Dumbledore freeze harry when he was already invisible? – Harry was frozen to be a ‘witness’ to his apparent murder
• Missing text, only in US version : “He cannot kill you if you are already dead… Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after all.”
• Fawkes did not try and save Dumbledore, however, after the events is extremely vocal in letting everyone know of its masters death
• Avarda Kedavra curse was not real
-emphasis in the book on non-verbal spells
-Dumbledore was pushed back over the battlements
• Dumbledores wand goes flying over the battlements when he was disarmed by Malfoy, and the wand never mentioned again. However it is customary for a wizard to be buried with his wand (Note : Hagrid and Slughorns recount on Ode the wizard’s death). A wizards wand is extremely important in performing magic, yet it is never recovered
• Dumbledore’s body is never seen after the fall, not even at the funeral
• At the funeral, Dumbledores body burst into flames and Fawkes is seen y Harry. Whenever a phoenix burst into flames it reappears in another location, and it can take people with it.

SNAPE WAS IN ON DUMBLEDORES SECRET
• "Of course, it became apparent to me very quickly that he had no extraordinary talent at all. He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a simple combination of sheer luck and more talented friends. He is mediocre to the last degree..." (HBP pg 31/36) However Snape lies to Bellatrix and Narcissa about why he didn’t kill Harry in all those years. He knows Harry is anything but mediocre. Harry is a Parseltongue, able to produce a Patronus and extremely capable in Defence Against the Dark Arts
• “But Snape had gotten to his feet and strode to the small window, peered through the curtains, and then closed them again with a jerk. He turned around to face Narcissa, frowning.” (HBP pg 32/37) Snape lies again, he does not know the plan. And the action of closing the windows would allow him to read into the emotional Narcissa’s mind, using Legilimens
• Dumbledore knows that there is a curse set by Voldemort on the Defence Against the Dark Arts job, thus he realised Snape would not last the year.
• Hagrid overheard and argument between Dumbledore and Snape, “I jus' heard Snape sayin' Dumbledore took too much fer granted an' maybe he -- Snape -- didn' wan' ter do it anymore ... Dumbledore told him flat out he'd agreed ter do it an' that was all there was to it.". This could be evidence that Dumbledore intended Snape to at least look like to kill him.
• “...somebody else had spoken Snape's name, quite softly. "Severus..." The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading. Snape said nothing, but walked forward and pushed Malfoy roughly out of the way. ... Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. "Severus... Please...", Dumbledore isn’t pleading for his life, but instead is pleading with Snape to follow through with his promise.
• Dumbledore would not plead for his life, but be accepting of his fate, “To the well-organised mind, death is but the next great adventure”.
• Finally, Dumbledore was aware of the unbreakable vowel as Harry had alerted him, if Snape hadn’t already done so. Therefore Dumbledore knew Snape would have to kill him
• Snape, at the end of the 6th book has the opportunity to kill Harry, with no Dumbledore around, yet he doesn’t take it. As Dumbledore is already dead, it doesn’t matter if he kills Harry and abandons his post.
• Snape, who prides himself on his ability to control his emotions, looses them at a key point in his flight, “ Harry – ‘Kill me like you killed him, you coward –‘, ‘DON’T –‘ screamed Snape…’- CALL ME COWARD’ “. Snape only looses control when he is accused of cowardice because of killing Dumbledore, yet his anger is because he did so against his wishes. Snape was forced by Dumbledore to kill him, and thus such an act took incredible bravery and courage for Snape.

well the thing that you are all forgetting is that the avada kedarva curse does not throw people up in the air. Througout the book it only refers to slamming to the floor not flying half feet away. The spell that Snape used is clearly expellimeraus ( soory for spelling.It was non- verbal duhhhhhhh!

My theory is that Dumbledore is an unregistered animagus; a pheonix. When, in "Order of the Pheonix", Fawkes is hit by a killing spell, he does not die...he just looks dead. He comes back again in the final book. THUS, Dumbledore would look dead, but not really be. This brings me to the other part of the theory, Snape is good. If we accept that Dumbledore is an unregistered animagus, then we must accept that the killing curse would do nothing but bring it back to a young age. Which means that, Dumbledore would look dead..but when he catches in flames at his funeral, he is in fact becoming young again. Which in turn would mean that he would grow back again, and be able to help Harry like he always does.

hate to admit it, but have no real idea whether or not DD is dead. JKR is just too dadgum good at planting clues - and false clues - and writing key pasages in a way that turns out to be VERY ambiguous upon close inspection. the lady knows her craft.

still, i hold out hope for DD's return. key reasons for this:
1) while swimming to the cave, DD "suddenly" exhibits the "agility of a much younger man". whoa! where'd that come from?
2) DD says "oho" in the cave. he's never ever said "oho" at any time before. but we know someone else who does....
3) snape's 'avada kedavra' blasts DD off his feet, and over the side. every other time we've seen AK used - quite a few times, now - the victim just slumps like a puppet with its strings cut. why is this AK different?
4) why would DD make the boneheaded tactical move of freezing harry on the tower? harry's invisible at the time. why not just let invisible harry neutralize malfoy and get on to business?
5) "he cannot kill you if you are already dead". what's that word? foreshadowing?
6) at the funeral, the body bursts into flames. for a brief second, harry thinks he sees a phoenix flying away. and phoenixes are famous for....rising from the ashes, reborn. what's that word? foreshadowing?

well. we can still hope, no?

Remember what Hagrid told Harry he overheard? Snape and Dumbledore arguing? Snape said he "didn't want to do it" anymore and Dumbledore said something like (I'm not quoting) "he promised he would" or something...? Dundundun...

I reccommend (sorry about the spelling) www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com :-)

"Count me out of the "Snape is REALLY good" group. Frankly, I figger that enough people would be amazed if Snape actually IS a villain/ not a super secret triple agent."

I think Snape is like Captian Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean (again, sorry about the spelling). He's on whichever side wins.

Somebody mentioned Bellatrix zapping Narcissa, which I had forgotten, actually. Could Narcissa actually have been Dumbledore in disguise, not the other way around, explaining the hand, as well as Snape's twitch during the vow? All part of the plan...

-------

Her exact words (when making the Vow) were "...will you watch over my son, Draco..."
Sooooo unless Dumbledore has a son named Draco...