# Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince point of discussion (Spoilers)



## Bront (Nov 26, 2005)

I've talked about this with a few friends, but wanted to get some views here from the board.

It is my suposition that:

Dumbledore either is not dead, and simply arranged with Snape to fake it, or, at least arranged for his own death to inspire Harry.

Points:
1) Some of the death scene seem a bit too choriographed.
2) Snape is supposedly a master of casting spells without speaking, so could have easily cast a different spell instead of the killing spell and simply disguised it.
3) The actual death didn't take place in the school, as he was blown out of it.
4) Durring the chase, Snape seems to be lecturing Harry on casting without speaking instead of simply dealing with him with a stun or hold spell of some kind.  It seemed like more of a lecture than a taunt.
5) Snape and Dumbledore seem to have a trusting relationship, at least it's hinted at, so the two working up this plan seems possable or even likely.

I'd like to hear any thoughts on this.


----------



## Someone (Nov 26, 2005)

IIRC, Rowling said something like "'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This wizard is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-WIZARD!!" 

So yes, Dumbledore´s dead.


----------



## Bront (Nov 26, 2005)

That could be marketing 

It's just a theory, and untill the 7th book comes out, you can't prove me wrong


----------



## billd91 (Nov 26, 2005)

But don't forget that Dumbledore's portrait appeared in the headmaster's office. I think that's a sure sign he's dead as a doornail. It would also make his actual survival unnecessary since at least part of him remains at the headmaster's (in this case, headmistress's) disposal.

I think Dumbledore is pushing up the daisies.
ANd while Snape is clearly good at dueling and casting spells without voicing them, we don't know that works too well with the killing curse. Otherwise, you'd figure Voldemort would do the same. It might just be too powerful a spell to not verbalize it.


----------



## Bront (Nov 26, 2005)

He doesn't kill Harry because he claims the Dark Lord has claimed him for his own, so that's not an issue, but he does verbalize the killing curse, the question is if he nonverbalizes something before that to counter it.

I had forgoten about the Portrate, but that doesn't mean he's got to be dead.  I just thought it was a cool theory, and potential supprise in the next book if you hadn't though about it, and figured I'd get some other opinions.


----------



## David Howery (Nov 26, 2005)

one thing that really stuck out in my mind is that during the chase, Snape made a point of preventing Harry from using one of the unforgivable curses (can't remember which one) against him... even at this point, he found it important to do this, as it would put Harry in Azkaban to do so.  Which makes me think that Snape is still one of the good guys, and the whole Dumbledore dies thing was a contingency plan.. something along the lines of "OK, Snape, if it comes down to blowing your cover or killing me, kill me, and keep Harry safe"...


----------



## Crothian (Nov 26, 2005)

Bront said:
			
		

> Points:
> 1) Some of the death scene seem a bit too choriographed.




This is easy to ingone as she's just not that good of writer so I think its a writing problem and not a planned thing.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Nov 26, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> This is easy to ingone as she's just not that good of writer so I think its a writing problem and not a planned thing.



 I think it looked staged because, well, it _was _staged.  For Harry and/or Draco's benefit, if nothing else.  I think Dumbledore and Snape both knew what parts they had to play and did so - although judging by the argument Harry earlier overheard between the two of them, Snape might have needed a lot of persuasion.  

As for me, I believe
A) Dumbledore's dead.  No one survives the killing curse (except the 'boy who lived', of course).  And,

B) Snape is very deep cover, but still working for the good guys.  The whole chapter at the beginning of the book where he's scheming with Bellatrix and Narcissa?  Too much of a plot giveaway if Snape were telling the truth.


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 27, 2005)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I think it looked staged because, well, it _was _staged.  For Harry and/or Draco's benefit, if nothing else.  I think Dumbledore and Snape both knew what parts they had to play and did so - although judging by the argument Harry earlier overheard between the two of them, Snape might have needed a lot of persuasion.
> 
> As for me, I believe
> A) Dumbledore's dead.  No one survives the killing curse (except the 'boy who lived', of course).  And,
> ...




A quote from somewhere else fits my theory, which corresponds with yours:

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

Dumbledore knew that the most good he could do was this.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 27, 2005)

I also believe him to be dead, though the phoenix/not dead imagery is pretty brutal. I mean, talking about faking death, just before you die? But I'm pretty sure he's dead, otherwise it'd be a bit too mean.

And heck, who needs him? He must be the worst headmaster ever! The stuff Snape got away with? rampantly abused his position to punish Harry and other non-Slitherin students! Hiring Hagrid as a teacher? Is there ANY chance his students learned enough to pass their exams? (Many passed, most likely in spite of his teaching, rather than because of it, IMO.)

Heck, he even hired a WEREWOLF to teach a class! That werewolf tried to attack several students!


----------



## Endur (Nov 27, 2005)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I think it looked staged because, well, it _was _staged.  For Harry and/or Draco's benefit, if nothing else.  I think Dumbledore and Snape both knew what parts they had to play and did so - although judging by the argument Harry earlier overheard between the two of them, Snape might have needed a lot of persuasion.
> 
> As for me, I believe
> A) Dumbledore's dead.  No one survives the killing curse (except the 'boy who lived', of course).  And,
> ...




This is my interpretation as well.  Dumbledore told Snape to kill him.

Now whether this is Gandalf the Grey or Obi-Wan Kenobi, that I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking Obi-Wan.  Obi-Wan could not kill Vader (because he raised Vader), so he arranged to die to give Luke the motivation to grow to defeat Vader & the Emperor


----------



## Bront (Nov 27, 2005)

Well, as I said, Dumbledore arranged for his death could be the other option, I just wanted to explore if he's alive.  I do think Snape is undercover still though.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> This is easy to ingone as she's just not that good of writer so I think its a writing problem and not a planned thing.



I disagree.  The ammount of planning and working in past points is very good writing.  Her style is a bit simplistic, but the books have been aimed at a younger audience, so I don't fault her for that.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 27, 2005)

Well, remember that right before that scene, Dumbledore is explaining to Draco that he could perfectly fake someones death, make it so that everybody would believe they are dead and nobody could tell otherwise.  That sounds like it could be a bit of foreshadowing.

Remember, when the killing curse is normally used, the victim just falls down dead, end of story.  Dumbledore went flying off the castle with a flourish.  Also, if somebody speaks the words of the curse without the hatred to back it up, nothing happens, and the book also set up the concept of silent spells and Snape was proficient with them.  

There is all that Phoenix imagery about Dumbledore, she hammers it in pretty hard too.

It seemed to me like the book was laying the foundation for one heck of a show for Harry.  Snape and Dumbledore collaborate to put on the ultimate death scene, where Dumbledore fakes his own death, Snape makes it look like he's using the death curse but actually casts something else, and Dumbledore goes into hiding.

Now Harry has seen his mentor cut down by Snape, and Harry's already deep drive to defeat Voldemort and his minions is even stronger.  Dumbledore may well have realized that the best thing he could do at the time would be to drive Harry on even further and giving Snape ultimate crediblity since he was the one who apparently killed Dumbledore, by arranging for an incredible show.  Dumbledore lays low for a while, staying out of sight to keep them motivated, but ready to reappear at the right moment when he'll be needed.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 27, 2005)

I'm pretty sure that the reason Dumbledore trusted Snape so much was they had an Unbreakable Vow between them.   I think Snape was still acting according to plan when he "killed" Dumbledore.  Dumbledore is probably not dead.  Snape was still teaching Harry when he defeated him out at the edges of the school, telling him he would have to learn to shut his mouth and his mind if he was going to duel Voldemort.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Nov 28, 2005)

Dumbledore is probably not dead.  Would go against story telling tradition and JK Rowling tends to follow story telling tradition.
Also I don't like the idea of Snape being evil.  He's not a nice person and an anti hero but I don't think he'd actually kill Dumbledore unless it was for the greater good.

I doubt that Snape can cast the killing cure without verbalizing it.  The spell slot modifier for silent spell is +1 and the killing curse is at least a level 7 spell Snape probably isn't high enough level


----------



## Taelorn76 (Nov 28, 2005)

I am of the mind that Dumbledore is dead, no coming back. What makes me say that is that his portrait came up in the headmasters quarters. 

Snape I beleive killed Dumbledore under his orders, he had to be sacrificed for the greater good. Now the Order has a plant deep in Vold's deatheaters. And most of them will take what he did at face value, not thinking to look below the surface.

My concern is I think Harry is to dimwitted to puzzle this out. He lets his emotions get the better of him, and rule his actions. Only after taking down Snape will he realize what was going on.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 28, 2005)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> I doubt that Snape can cast the killing cure without verbalizing it.  The spell slot modifier for silent spell is +1 and the killing curse is at least a level 7 spell Snape probably isn't high enough level



Well, the idea is that Snape subvocalized a "throw Dumbledore" spell, while yelling out the Killing Curse. Not sure of wand movements though...


----------



## Taelorn76 (Nov 28, 2005)

I don't have a copy of book 4 at hand, but when the curse was used at the end was the character thrown back. IIRC in the movie he was thrown back when he was hit with the curse. If Dumblecore was close enough to the edge he could have been thrown off as well.

*Being a little cryptic in case some have not read or seen book 4.


----------



## erian_7 (Nov 28, 2005)

Just to get the theory out--Snape became a deatheater because he loved Potter's mom and wanted the power to take her.  He left the deatheaters when Voldemort killed the woman he loved, thus Dumbledore always saying love is more powerful than Dark Magic.  


As for Dumbldore being dead, maybe and maybe not but either way it was planned by him and Snape to further the OotP's end game of taking down Voldemort--Snape is still a "good" guy.

No proof for any of it, just a hunch...


----------



## billd91 (Nov 28, 2005)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> I am of the mind that Dumbledore is dead, no coming back. What makes me say that is that his portrait came up in the headmasters quarters.
> 
> Snape I beleive killed Dumbledore under his orders, he had to be sacrificed for the greater good. Now the Order has a plant deep in Vold's deatheaters. And most of them will take what he did at face value, not thinking to look below the surface.
> 
> My concern is I think Harry is to dimwitted to puzzle this out. He lets his emotions get the better of him, and rule his actions. Only after taking down Snape will he realize what was going on.




I suspect that Snape was acting under orders from Dumbledore to do what he had to do to protect Malfoy (from himself, ultimately, as well as Voldemort) and follow through with the unbreakable vow he made with Narcissa (which I'm pretty certain he made without knowing the purpose of Malfoy's task). I believe Snape did this, however, quite reluctantly which is why they argued as was reported to Harry.

But I also believe that nobody in the Order has any idea of this. Members who otherwise would have  known seemed quite shocked. Snape is so deeply in that only he knows about it. I can't imagine anyone in the Order believing this would be an appropriate trade - Dumbledore for an unimpeachable Snape (as far as Death Eaters are concerned) and Malfoy's soul. It's likely only Dumbledore would have been comfortable with that decision.

Harry isn't dimwitted. He's impulsive and he still has plenty of reason to hate Snape, regardless of the reasons Snape has done some of the things he's done. And even if someone (likely Hermione) figures out what's going on with Snape, I don't think Harry would be likely to care. And I wouldn't think he was wrong.

I believe something is going to happen with Malfoy. He'll turn traitor on Voldemort for some reason. I've been convinced of this since the 2nd movie came out on DVD. The screenwriter was saying that some things have been revealed to him ahead of time by Rowling that have made their way into the movies. Sometimes it's a bit more told to the actors to get their parts down. Sometimes it's foreshadowing. In the 2nd movie, it might have been a cut scene on the DVD, they showed Malfoy being bullied by his old man. Perhaps it was just there to humanize the little bastard a little more, but I think it foreshadows something. And now that Dumbledore has been sacrificed to save Malfoy's soul, after he was having a hard time actually doing the deed, I think we'll see results.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Nov 28, 2005)

This thought occured to me last night. Does anyone else think that maybe the Order is using Harry as a pawn to defeat Vold. He survived his initial attack and the Order brought him under their wings to mold him and shape him the for their own means.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 28, 2005)

I believe that Dumbledore is entirely dead.  Despite the phoenix imagery, there's also been tons of foreshadowing in the books that once dead, always dead; no spell can resurrect the dead, etc.

Although I do admit that there's some dodgy passages that seem like they're purposefully set up to cast potential doubt in the readers as to whether or not Dumbledore's really gone or not too.  I suppose I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turns out he faked his death, but I don't really believe that that's the case.

And Crothian!   Wow, given the thread topic, that's not only pretty much irrelevent, but could pretty fairly be considered to be trolling.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 28, 2005)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> This thought occured to me last night. Does anyone else think that maybe the Order is using Harry as a pawn to defeat Vold. He survived his initial attack and the Order brought him under their wings to mold him and shape him the for their own means.




I don't think this is in the character of anybody in the Order. They're the good guys. They want to mold Harry, yes. But they want to mold him into being a decent young man. If that means he then has the moral strength to challenge Voldemort, that's fine. But I don't think any of that could ever be characterized as using him as a pawn. 

Molly Weasley would probably annihilate anybody who tried.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And Crothian!   Wow, given the thread topic, that's not only pretty much irrelevent, but could pretty fairly be considered to be trolling.




In a thread talking about a book, mentioning the writer is not the most skilled and that people might be reading (funny pun!!) too much into the book because of that is irrelevant and trolling??  I don't see it as either Joshua, I just don't see it.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 28, 2005)

Well, I guess I can see the relevence that way, although that's not terribly clear.

To me, it came across more as a "let's talk about potential future plot points because we're all fans of the books and want to debate the future direction of the series" and you came in and said; "eh, she's rubbish as an author anyway--who cares?"

But, I've been known to read intent badly at times when it comes to Internet postings and whatnot.


----------



## F5 (Nov 28, 2005)

I'm also in the camp that says that Dumbledore is only _mostly_ dead.

The phoenix imagery surrounding him is too strong to ignore.  I'm not sure in what way he will come back, but he WILL come back.  

Several thought about what being "dead" gives him:  He's become a portrait in the headmaster's office.  So is Slytherin (as an original founder of the school).  We know the pictures in Hogwarts can interact with each other...maybe Dumbledore went straight to the source?  Or, assuming he faked his death, a regular, magical picture will move and act as if it were one of the headmaster portraits.  It could still be part of an elaborate ruse.

Harry and friends still have his pensive.  Say he "downloaded" himself into the pensieve before everything went down.  He'll still be "there" to advise and guide.  It would be almost like finding a way to set himself up with a Horcrux, without having to, you know...break his soul, or anything.

Another thought (having just seen the fouth movie, the image is fresh in my mind...) the whole "priori incantatum" thing with the two similar wands causing feedback.  Harry's wand is made from the same feather as Voldemort's wand, so they react, and all the souls killed by voldemort's wand appear.  Maybe someone has a wand that matches Snape's, and this is a way to get Dumbledore into the "inner circle" in a horribly convoluted way?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 29, 2005)

erian_7 said:
			
		

> Just to get the theory out--Snape became a deatheater because he loved Potter's mom and wanted the power to take her.  He left the deatheaters when Voldemort killed the woman he loved, thus Dumbledore always saying love is more powerful than Dark Magic.




The problem I have with Snape's Deatheater history;
Snape heard a portion of the prophecy, thus starting Vold on the Potter Path.

somewhere in here, Snape turns to the Order of the Phoenix, feeding them information. (Per Dumbledore's testimony.)

Voldemort kills Lily, and is destroyed.


I'm not sure when they learned that Vold was going after the Potters, but I think Lily's death can't be responsibile for Snape's conversion to the Phoenix Order, given Voldemort was destroyed within moments of her death.

So, yeah, Snape may have left because of Vold killing Lily, but when Lily was killed it became a nonissue, since Vold was destroyed immediately thereafter. The prophecy is what prompted Tre-lady to be hired, she was present for 16 years in book 5. So, time-wise, it's only a couple years between the prophecy and Lily's death, at the most, probably 1 year for really knowing it was her child that the prophecy might mean. At what point Snape joined the Phoenix Order, I haven't seen, but I'm still not sure it was because of Lily.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 29, 2005)

F5 said:
			
		

> Several thought about what being "dead" gives him:  He's become a portrait in the headmaster's office.  So is Slytherin (as an original founder of the school).  We know the pictures in Hogwarts can interact with each other...maybe Dumbledore went straight to the source?  Or, assuming he faked his death, a regular, magical picture will move and act as if it were one of the headmaster portraits.  It could still be part of an elaborate ruse.




The portrait was still asleep anyway, so there's no proof it's his "death picture".

The neatest thing I think of, is when Dumbledore is kicked out of the groups in Book 5, and remarks to (er, Ron maybe), that he's fine, as long as they don't take him off the trading cards. 

If he can go to any picture of himself, and his pictures are on trading cards...


----------



## lrsach01 (Nov 29, 2005)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Dumbledore is probably not dead.  Would go against story telling tradition and JK Rowling tends to follow story telling tradition.




Actually, Dumbledore being dead is COMPLETELY within story telling tradition going right back to mythology. The wise old wizard/mentor almost always dies/leaves so the hero can grow as a character. Look at Merlin and Arthur, Obiwan and Luke, Phoenix and Achilles (although I'm a little fuzzy on that last one).


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2005)

lrsach01 said:
			
		

> Phoenix and Achilles (although I'm a little fuzzy on that last one).



I can imagine so.  Achilles mentor was Chiron, and he was not killed that I remember.  The Phoenix was an Egyptian, not a Greek myth, and it's the familiar ressurrection bird, not anyone's mentor.


----------



## Roudi (Nov 30, 2005)

I will toss this out for discussion purposes only.  This is entirely speculative.

Harry will discover he is the final horcrux.

It makes sense, in a way.  Until Voldemort's resurrection, he and Harry have shared a very odd sort of link encompassing both a pain-based rangefinder and a weird sort of clairvoyance.  If part of Voldemort's soul was in Harry, that would certainly help explain it.

The thing is, Voldemort probably didn't mean to make Harry a horcrux.  It likely was an unforseen consequence of something that happened the fateful night he tried to kill Harry and slaughtered the senior Potters.  The ressurection ritual has thus defeated part of the link between Harry and Voldemort, but probably hasn't un-horcruxed Harry.

Meaning that Harry will probably have to take his own life to finally finish Voldemort.

Just a thought.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 30, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> I will toss this out for discussion purposes only.  This is entirely speculative.
> 
> Harry will discover he is the final horcrux.



That theory has been mentioned before, but I doubt it myself. The snake is the Last Horcrux, though one is missing in the middle somewhere.

Of more interest to me, is that the plan of Voldemort's doesn't seem to require 6 horcruxes, but rather it requires him to split his soul into 7 parts. Even with two destroyed, he's not splitting his soul futher. I think it's a Ravenclaw object myself, but we'll see.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 1, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> I will toss this out for discussion purposes only.  This is entirely speculative.
> 
> Harry will discover he is the final horcrux.



I Love that idea.



			
				Roudi said:
			
		

> Meaning that Harry will probably have to take his own life to finally finish Voldemort.
> 
> Just a thought.



I like the way you think. I would applaud Rowling if she did that. Parents groups would KILL her for all the RL suicides that would follow though.

I have really been questioning the quality of the potter books as they have gotten darker. i LIKE dark, but Rowling seems a touch out of her element IMHO. She nailed school life on the head, but some stuff just seems off.

BTW I LOVE the little stab rowling took at Harry / Draco "slash"


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 1, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> I will toss this out for discussion purposes only.  This is entirely speculative.
> 
> Harry will discover he is the final horcrux.



Well, someone had to say it.  This theory has popped up in every HP conversation/thread/MB that I've ever been on.  It's one of the popular theories and some people really like it.  I am not one of them.  It's not bad but it doesn't fit with the path of the hero that Rowling seems to be going for.  Harry having to turn his wand on himself to defeat Voldy is nice and dark (I like dark) but it really doesn't seem to fit thematically.



			
				Roudi said:
			
		

> It makes sense, in a way.  Until Voldemort's resurrection, he and Harry have shared a very odd sort of link encompassing both a pain-based rangefinder and a weird sort of clairvoyance.  If part of Voldemort's soul was in Harry, that would certainly help explain it.
> 
> The thing is, Voldemort probably didn't mean to make Harry a horcrux.  It likely was an unforseen consequence of something that happened the fateful night he tried to kill Harry and slaughtered the senior Potters.  The ressurection ritual has thus defeated part of the link between Harry and Voldemort, but probably hasn't un-horcruxed Harry.



The one and only hole I can see in this is that (according to the book) a horcrux cannot accidentally be created.  It is a completely evil act and requires a deliberate act of cruelty and malice to
be done.  Accidentally putting some of his soul into someone that he planned on killing may make a little sense in a world of magic but I don't see it.  Just doesn't fit.  Harry being saved by the power of his mother's love works for me.  The Oldest Magic.  It saved him twice (once by proxy) but now that defense is gone.  The rest is up to Harry, his friends and the Order.


----------



## Bront (Dec 1, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> In a thread talking about a book, mentioning the writer is not the most skilled and that people might be reading (funny pun!!) too much into the book because of that is irrelevant and trolling??  I don't see it as either Joshua, I just don't see it.



For what it's worth, I read it as on topic, though a bit abrupt.


----------



## Khuxan (Dec 1, 2005)

I agree with Crothian, that Rowling is not that crash-hot an author (I think I mixed metaphors, but oh well). I'm suprised no one has brought up http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/ yet. For the record, I don't know if AD is dead or not, but I would be seriously upset if he remains alive. It would be such a hackneyed, appeal-to-the-fans deus ex macchina...

Whoever talked about him being a grossly-negligent principal is also right.


----------



## Bront (Dec 1, 2005)

While I like the Harry is a horcrux idea, I seriously doubt it.  Not only for the potential legal issues if kids start killing themselves, but because it would be a bit too anti-cimactic for the books to end on Harry's death.  Besides, he has to kill Voldemort after he destroys the Horcruxes, and he can't do that if he kills himself to destroy the last one.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 1, 2005)

Bront said:
			
		

> Besides, he has to kill Voldemort after he destroys the Horcruxes, and he can't do that if he kills himself to destroy the last one.



 But if Moldybutt tries to slay someone close to Harry and Mr potter takes a bullet to save them, then it all works out.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 1, 2005)

If Harry dies that will be unsuitable, IMO, for the kids that make up the main audience of the books.  If he kills himself then I'd say she is way out of line.  I expect a more happy ending and would be a bit put off if it's a downer like Harry dying.  

This isn't a Stephen King novel!


----------



## David Howery (Dec 1, 2005)

since this is a kid's series of novels, I think it's safe to say that Harry, Hermione, and Ron will survive and Voldemort will die... Ginny will probably be threatened and in mortal peril, but be rescued.  Harry will end up as an Auror or a Hogwart's teacher... my guess is the DADA teacher...


----------



## wolff96 (Dec 1, 2005)

Am I the only one that read the interview where she said that one of the "big three" (Ron, Harry, and Hermione) was going to die in the final book?

And for what it's worth, I believe that Dumbledore is deader than a doornail.  Every time they said something along the lines of "We're safe as long as Dumbledore is around, he's the only one You-Know-Who has ever feared." it was another nail in the old wizard's coffin.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Dec 1, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> If Harry dies that will be unsuitable, IMO, for the kids that make up the main audience of the books.  If he kills himself then I'd say she is way out of line.  I expect a more happy ending and would be a bit put off if it's a downer like Harry dying.



The "kids" are growing up with Potter, so the target audience for the last book will be what? 16, 17?
Such is live. At that age I had to cope with the suicide of Kurt Cobain 




			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> This isn't a Stephen King novel!




Yes. So Potter will stay dead. And Dumbledore, for that matter.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 1, 2005)

I think it _very_ unlikely that any of the "Three Musketeers" will die, and I'd consider it nearly impossible that Harry would die in this series, personally.  I just really, really don't see it.

However, we have had, in each of the last three books, the death of a character of increasing importance and significance.  I expect to see a few more important characters die in the next/last book.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Dec 1, 2005)

I just want to bring up the following point. 

There was obviously some sort of emphasis on learning to cast spells silently, but...is it just me or does Harry already have a hidden talent for it?

I can think of 2 specific instances when he's used magic wordlessly, (if not also accidentally). In SS when he released the snake from its cage, and in POA when he blew up his aunt.


----------



## Tinner (Dec 2, 2005)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that read the interview where she said that one of the "big three" (Ron, Harry, and Hermione) was going to die in the final book?
> 
> And for what it's worth, I believe that Dumbledore is deader than a doornail.  Every time they said something along the lines of "We're safe as long as Dumbledore is around, he's the only one You-Know-Who has ever feared." it was another nail in the old wizard's coffin.




I recall hearing that one of the Big 3 was going to die.
I think it has to be Harry.
But not necessarily because Harry is V's final hoarcrux. I think he'll have to die because it will be the only way possible to stop Voldemort.

I actually think that Dumbeldore used his death to create some sort of hoarcrux or other protection for Harry.
Dumbeldore is always telling Harry about how powerful the force of Love is. This is usually in reference to lily's sacrificial death to save Harry.

Well, it sure seems to me that Dumdledore set up his own sacrificial death to give Harry power as well.
Perhaps it's just some sort of ultimate charm to ward off Voldemort, or he's transferred some of his power to Harry the same way V accidentally did when he tried to kill Harry?
We know that creating a hoarcrux requires a death. Would D have arranged for Snape to kill him to create one for Harry?

I can't wait for book 7!!!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 2, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> The "kids" are growing up with Potter, so the target audience for the last book will be what? 16, 17?
> Such is live. At that age I had to cope with the suicide of Kurt Cobain
> 
> 
> ...




There are tons of Potter fans who are still young kids of 9 or 10 and like ages.  I don't think she needs to put that much adult content in the books.  Sure people die, but I know my godson and his brother and other kids would just be devastated if Harry gets killed.  He's the hero they identify with.  The books are getting more sophisticated as Harry grows up but I don't think the target audience has changed much, it still childrens lit IMO.  

P.S. Well if you have read much King you know that most of his "heroes" end up totally screwed over, or dead, or insane at the end of his stories.  There are really no happy endings for the most part.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Dec 2, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> There are tons of Potter fans who are still young kids of 9 or 10 and like ages.  I don't think she needs to put that much adult content in the books.




You're redefining "adult content" 




			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> The books are getting more sophisticated as Harry grows up but I don't think the target audience has changed much, it still childrens lit IMO.




Yes, but it could be argued if it's suitable for small children.
Let me rephrase that: I'm not sure if it's suitable for children who couldn't cope with the death of the main character.

Then again, I haven't read the books yet


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't think it's a question of suitability, it's a question of her not wanting to kill Harry (I expect, and I believe from transcripts of a few interviews I've read with her) and I suspect she also knows that it would be a phenomenal marketing blunder because most of the audience would hate that too.


----------



## Urizen (Dec 3, 2005)

It had occured to me (just after reading the book) that A.D might have created a Hoarcrux which contained his own essence when he died with Snape's help, Dumbledore being the "sacrifice" needed in this case.

I'm not quite sure that floats though. I don't know if Dumbledore (or anyone else for that matter) could create a hoarcrux for themselves if someone else is doing the killing. 

Something is definately odd about that "fake" hoarcrux though. I'm wondering what other relevance it might have.

Hmm, a 7th book devoted to finding 4 hoarcruxes seems unlikely to me. I'd be willing to bet this goes past 7 books.

Does anyone else see alot of "pagan" influences in these books?


----------



## Urizen (Dec 3, 2005)

Oh, for what it's worth, I don't think Dumbledore's dead. No proof, just a hunch.

Even if it wasn't the hoarcrux theory I proposed, something just seems_off_about that whole death scene. I don't buy it.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Dec 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a question of suitability, it's a question of her not wanting to kill Harry (I expect, and I believe from transcripts of a few interviews I've read with her) and I suspect she also knows that it would be a phenomenal marketing blunder because most of the audience would hate that too.




Might be that she likes Potter too much to kill him (although killing Dumbledore makes me think otherwise - that woman is ruthless!).
But I don't believe that the richest woman in the UK would consider if it's bad for business to kill him. She already said that there'll be 7 Potter books, not more. Why not kill the brat? So she can make another billion with merchandise?

Frankly, I don't _believe_ she'll kill Potter. But that's the thing: I don't _know_ it.
She'll do whatever is best for the story, whether this involves killing Potter or not.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Dec 3, 2005)

*Harry, Horcruces and Death*

Folks, Harry is not a Horcrux.

Points of evidence:

* The only reason Voldemort bothered to kill Harry was because of Trelawney's prophesy. Thus, Harry would not have been on Voldemort's list of items with which to make seven Horcruces. If he wanted to make seven Horcruces, he would have already chosen seven other items.

* You're splitting your soul into seven parts. Destroying one of those seven parts puts you one-seventh closer to mortal again. You don't destroy one of those parts. Voldemort intended to kill Harry Potter, something fairly clear from his using _Avada Kedavra_, as spell which thitherto had a 100% fatality rate if the victim could not move out of the way or cast a blocking spell. Killing off one-seventh of your soul strikes me as something The Whiny Witch wrote in Seven Stupid Things Dark Lords Do to Mess Up Their Lives.

* Since Voldemort gave the option of life to Lily Potter, he did not intend to use her death in making the Horcrux, and the protective magic she cast on Harry probably would have foiled that anyways.

* From the memories in the Pensieve, it does not look like making a Horcrux is a spur-of-the-moment deed. Bringing back Voldemort's body took plenty of planning and work on the part of Voldemort and Wormtail. Voldemort busted into Godric's Hollow and fought off two wizards -- one to whom Voldemort gave the option of living. He did not have the luxury of time.

On the subject of death: the structure of the Monomyth lends itself to trips into the world of the dead. She has already given us the technology with which one can meet the dead -- the Veil. At some point, there has to be some way for something to come out of the Veil, as voices do, as otherwise, it's just a big weapon. It could be as simple as Harry sliding Sirius's mirror under the Veil and using that to talk to Sirius and others, or more involved, like Harry figuring out (or, more likely, Hermione figuring out and telling Harry) how to use the Veil to be able to go through it both ways. I think of Aeneas and Orpheus entering the realms of the dead. Let me put it this way -- Sirius died in the way he died for a reason, which is to show everyone how the Veil works. We have to know how the Veil works for it to be something other than a _deus ex machina_ in book Seven. She has done this before, namely with the Polyjuice Potion episode in _Chamber of Secrets_. You can omit that without changing the plot of that book too much, but then you have the ending of _Goblet of Fire_ needing a thitherto unknown potion that happens to change the look of the drinker to be someone else. It would have been harder to take. Knowing this is one of Rowling's strengths as a writer. Indeed, she does this better than almost anyone else.

The other issue is that at some point, Voldemort will cast the Killing Curse again on Harry Potter and nothing will stop it. He has done this three times, all three times stopped -- first time by Lily Potter's sacrifice and protective magic, the second by _Priori Incantum_ and the third by Dumbledore blocking the flash. What will happen to Harry is anyone's guess. Part of me thinks that he does die, but somehow comes back through the Veil, maybe only to finish his mission (Rowling believes that dead is dead), or using the excuse from _Heaven Can Wait_ that he was not supposed to have died then.

FWIW, my SWAG (semi-wild-assed guess) is that while Harry does destroy the Horcruces, someone else -- likely Neville -- delivers the killing blow to Voldemort. I have nothing to back up this, other than that I am a Neville Longbottom fan.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 3, 2005)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> Folks, Harry is not a Horcrux.
> 
> Points of evidence:
> 
> ...




A lot of great points.  And I agree on Neville.  He really came into his own in Order of the Phoenix.  He may be clumsy and a dope at times but he has a lot of heart.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 4, 2005)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> * You're splitting your soul into seven parts. Destroying one of those seven parts puts you one-seventh closer to mortal again. You don't destroy one of those parts. Voldemort intended to kill Harry Potter, something fairly clear from his using _Avada Kedavra_, as spell which thitherto had a 100% fatality rate if the victim could not move out of the way or cast a blocking spell. Killing off one-seventh of your soul strikes me as something The Whiny Witch wrote in Seven Stupid Things Dark Lords Do to Mess Up Their Lives.




The part I'm still working out, is the contradiction from the start to the end of the paragraph (in the stories, not your post). When the soul fragments are destroyed, I don't think Voldemort gets them back, so he's still got 1/7th of a soul. He doesnt' seem attached to the soul fragments (ala Riddles Diary), so I think he just wants to insure there are still enough out there to guarentee his survival. The objects themselves mean nothing, IMO.
So, why would having 1/7th of a soul mean something?

As far as Harry being a Horcrux, Nagini proves it can be a person, but I don't think it works that way.

HOWEVER, it does seem that Harry has the ability to intrude on Voldemort's mind, as Voldemort does Nagini.
So, maybe Voldemort is Harry's Horcrux, created by the enchantments he wove to create a horcrux. Perhaps Harry "killed" Voldemort.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Dec 4, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The part I'm still working out, is the contradiction from the start to the end of the paragraph (in the stories, not your post). When the soul fragments are destroyed, I don't think Voldemort gets them back, so he's still got 1/7th of a soul. He doesnt' seem attached to the soul fragments (ala Riddles Diary), so I think he just wants to insure there are still enough out there to guarentee his survival. The objects themselves mean nothing, IMO.
> So, why would having 1/7th of a soul mean something?



Nothing in particular. My point is that it makes little sense to make something as a protective measure and destroy it in the process of making it protect you, especially since once destroyed, it no longer protects you.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> As far as Harry being a Horcrux, Nagini proves it can be a person, but I don't think it works that way.



Speaking of Nagini ... is Nagini the snake Harry frees in _Philosopher's Stone_?



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> HOWEVER, it does seem that Harry has the ability to intrude on Voldemort's mind, as Voldemort does Nagini.
> So, maybe Voldemort is Harry's Horcrux, created by the enchantments he wove to create a horcrux. Perhaps Harry "killed" Voldemort.



Brings to mind the whole Raistlin-Fistandantilus issue. There's still a whole bunch about that night at Godric's Hollow we don't know, which is part of the appeal of the books, as a mystery.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 5, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> Might be that she likes Potter too much to kill him (although killing Dumbledore makes me think otherwise - that woman is ruthless!).
> But I don't believe that the richest woman in the UK would consider if it's bad for business to kill him. She already said that there'll be 7 Potter books, not more. Why not kill the brat? So she can make another billion with merchandise?
> 
> Frankly, I don't _believe_ she'll kill Potter. But that's the thing: I don't _know_ it.
> She'll do whatever is best for the story, whether this involves killing Potter or not.





Personally, I don't think she'll kill Potter. I believe this because I think she can probably write a more interesting resolution to the story with him alive rather than with him dead. I can think of very interesting ways to handle Potter once his prophecied mission in life is done rather than have him die with completion of his quest.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 5, 2005)

If Harry is a horcrux, it would be an accidentally created one, I think that's pretty certain.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 6, 2005)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> Nothing in particular. My point is that it makes little sense to make something as a protective measure and destroy it in the process of making it protect you, especially since once destroyed, it no longer protects you.



Voldemort is pretty free with destroying Horcruxes, so that's why I think the significance isn't in the number of horcrux, but rather how much his soul gets fragmented. (i.e. leaving him with 1/7th of a soul). Except of course, hard to say if it's an even split or what.



> Speaking of Nagini ... is Nagini the snake Harry frees in _Philosopher's Stone_?



Interesting, but I've not seen anything one way or the other.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Dec 6, 2005)

I was somewhat disappointed with this book.
It felt very rushed, and was WAY too full of exposition.  

I thought the Ginny/ Harry thing was way too trite and cliche.


All that said, my thoughts/ speculation for the next book:

A) Snape is defintely still working for Dumbledore.   Dumbledore probably made Snape swear to do whatevr he was told.  This forced Snape to kill Dumbledore so that Draco woudln't have to.

B) Draco will be redeemed. I've said that from the beginning, but they really emphasized Draco's insecurities and doubts in the last two books.  (Of course, to my annoyance, in the movies [at least the last two, anyway], they've cheapened the character of Draco by making him a buffon akin to Gimli in the LotR movies.)

C) Harry will die.  Either he or Neville are the last of Voldemort's Horcruxes.

D) Neville will play a large part in the next book, perhaps even becoming the new hero after Harry dies.  (Harry's death spurs Neville to take on the mantle of hero and kill Voldemort.)


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 6, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> If Harry is a horcrux, it would be an accidentally created one, I think that's pretty certain.



Yep. Would go a long way to explaining things. A backfired Death Spell does sound like something that carve out a chunk of a soul so accustomed to having chunks carved out of It.

 Shadow, are you sure it is not you liking of Draco that makes you hope he will be redeemed? Any mayhap your dislike of the Ginny/Harry thing is from your hope for a different type of Harry slash Draco than that book gave you?  

I *strongly* doubt that nagini was the snake from book one. I have a hard time thinking nagini would tell potter _"Thanksss amigo"_ & If that is the case then Rowling has gone from things simply growing dark in dark times to _"No good deed goes unpunished"_. Which is IMHO darker than Potter needing to kill himself to stop Lord Moldybutt. But I cannot simply say "no, that snake is not Nagini" since "Raised in captivity" on a muggle zoo's sign, really is not a sure bet.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Dec 7, 2005)

> Shadow, are you sure it is not you liking of Draco that makes you hope he will be redeemed? Any mayhap your dislike of the Ginny/Harry thing is from your hope for a different type of Harry slash Draco than that book gave you?




Nope.
...
Well, probably not.    

I actually view Harry as sort of asexual, for the most part.  It seems like he's more consumed with other things. (Not that I blame him, with the Dark Lord after him, and all.)  

I thought his interactions with Cho Chang were forced and akward (Yes, I know he's a teenage boy, so he's supposed to be akward, but their scenes just didn't ring true.): and the Ginny thing? Just came too far out of left field for me to find it believable.

However, I totally bought the Ron/Hermione story hook, line and sinker, since they had such a good build-up to it in previous books.  (I didn't buy it as much in the movies, but that's a rant for another thread.)

As to Draco: I think it just seems evident that, with the parental influences out of the picture, for the most part, that Draco will be redeemed, likely when one of the Death-Eaters turns and tries to kill him.  

I have no desire to see Harry/Draco become friends: they just seem too different to find ANY sort of common ground.  But I don't see Draco as irredeemably evil as people make him out to be, either.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 7, 2005)

This is not a complaint about this thread or anyone in it. I just am posting this for what it's worth:

I have been avoiding spoilers about the latest book, waiting for the movies (as I've done with all but the first book -- just don't have time to read the HUGE volumes, right now). I heard a major character dies in Half-Blood Prince, but I've avoided guessing who.

I've posted in the other HP thread (about Goblet of Fire), and opened this thread thinking it was the other. The very first thing my eyes fall on is a sentence referencing Dumbledore's death. *^&%&*(*^!! I can't beleive I did this. Crap.

Oh well, maybe I'll forget by the time this comes to the screen.

Crap on a stick.

Bullgrit


----------



## Ulrik (Dec 8, 2005)

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> I've posted in the other HP thread (about Goblet of Fire), and opened this thread thinking it was the other. The very first thing my eyes fall on is a sentence referencing Dumbledore's death. *^&%&*(*^!! I can't beleive I did this. Crap.




I feel for you. It's kinda hard reading a forum like this, which covers quite a wide base. I read a thread (the character-killing thread) thinking it was about a Feast for Crows, which it was, and then [Serenity spoiler]    

I don't think it can be helped, but sometimes it feels like navigating a minefield


----------



## FCWesel (Dec 8, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> I will toss this out for discussion purposes only.  This is entirely speculative.
> 
> Harry will discover he is the final horcrux.




Hmm. What if Hermione is the last Horcrux holder? Muggle parents, greatest wizard of her time, etc. Big drama for Harry and his boon companions. Can he in any way save her and defeat the enemy?

Just a thought.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Dec 8, 2005)

FCWesel said:
			
		

> Hmm. What if Hermione is the last Horcrux holder? Muggle parents, greatest wizard of her time, etc. Big drama for Harry and his boon companions. Can he in any way save her and defeat the enemy?
> 
> Just a thought.



 Brilliant, but a little too dark for JKR, I think.

I think Hermione is her alter-ego; she won't kill "herself" in book 7.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 8, 2005)

For those who haven't read the books (namely, ME  ), what is a horcrux?


----------



## Staffan (Dec 8, 2005)

Sort of like a lich's phylactery in D&D. You put part of your soul in an item, and as long as that item isn't destroyed, you can't be killed.


----------



## FCWesel (Dec 9, 2005)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> I think Hermione is her alter-ego; she won't kill "herself" in book 7.




Yeah, I agree with you on that Barendd. To bad though, I do think this would be more interesting by far then what seems to be the case. Here's to hoping we are wrong.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 17, 2007)

Raise Thread!

I'm bringing this one back because I just started rereading "Half-Blood Prince" in preparation for the 7th book coming out, and noticed something in Chapter 1 that I hadn't noticed before - namely that Snape agrees to his Vow without having a clear idea what he's agreeing to.

Unless I'm missing a sentence somewhere he clearly seems to be bluffing his way through the conversations with Cissy and Bella.  He acts like he knows what they're saying, but I don't think the words "kill Dumbledore" ever come out of anyone's mouth.

Am I missing something?


----------



## sckeener (Jul 17, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Raise Thread!
> 
> I'm bringing this one back because I just started rereading "Half-Blood Prince" in preparation for the 7th book coming out, and noticed something in Chapter 1 that I hadn't noticed before - namely that Snape agrees to his Vow without having a clear idea what he's agreeing to.
> 
> ...




Nope you didn't miss anything....he agrees without knowing what he is being asked, later in the book Dumbledore & Snape argue and it is basically agreed that Dumbledore ordered Snape to complete full fill the vow...thus saving Draco from the fate of being the one that killed Dumbledore and keeping Snapes cover.



			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> Sort of like a lich's phylactery in D&D. You put part of your soul in an item, and as long as that item isn't destroyed, you can't be killed.




One thing I like about the Horcrux's vs a lich's phylactery, Voldemort's life being spared but really not worth living...if he hadn't had Wormtail's help he'd have continued like that for ages...


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 17, 2007)

Right.  Unlike a Lich, the horcrux-stored soul-fragments can't spontaneously recreate themselves a body; it (apparently) requires a great deal of external energy to do so (Ginny's life-force in CoS and Wormtail's ritual in GoF).

OTOH, it's entertaining to consider what might have happened if the events in CoS and GoF had occured more-or-less simultaneously.  Could Voldemort's soul-fragments be used to create multiple distinct individuals?


----------



## wolff96 (Jul 17, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> OTOH, it's entertaining to consider what might have happened if the events in CoS and GoF had occured more-or-less simultaneously.  Could Voldemort's soul-fragments be used to create multiple distinct individuals?




I don't think the Tom Riddle of the diary cared one lick about Voldemort-the-adult.  He seemed to consider his older alter-ego foolish for missing the power of love when trying to kill Harry.

I think he was trying to get HIMSELF a new form and new life, developing that soul fragment into a whole new individual.  

So yeah, I think in Rowling's world you could get a whole bunch of Voldemorts running around if you're not careful...


----------



## sckeener (Jul 17, 2007)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> So yeah, I think in Rowling's world you could get a whole bunch of Voldemorts running around if you're not careful...




I have this horrible mental picture of the New Voldemort making some horcruxs and some day way down the line....

the seventh horcrux of the seventh horcrux of Lord Voldemort shall arise and defeat the seventh son of the seventh son of Harry Potter. (after all Harry is supposed to have 12 kids at least according to Trelawney...)


----------



## Squire James (Jul 18, 2007)

My Harry Potter theory is a bit off the wall.

You know how that prophecy was worded so everyone thinks Harry (and perhaps Neville Longbottom) is the only one to fulfill the conditions?  Well, I think Dumbledore is not beyond lying to people, not even people like Harry.  I think Draco Malfoy also qualifies somehow... maybe he was reported born at 11:58 of the night before but he really wasn't born until 12:01 or some such.  Even more unlikely, maybe Neville and Draco were switched soon after birth, and neither one is truly quite who they think they are...

I also think that using an Unforgivable Curse disqualifies a person for being The One, which is why Snape was trying to make sure neither Harry nor Draco uttered one.  What Snape is not aware of is that Harry already disqualified himself with that weak but still Unforgivable Curse he uttered in Order of Phoenix.  In other words, Draco's the new Gollum - only he can destroy the Ring - ahem! - Valdemort!


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 18, 2007)

> We know that creating a hoarcrux requires a death. Would D have arranged for Snape to kill him to create one for Harry?




Very interesting point.  But if creating a horcrux requires malice and evil intent, I doubt DD had it in him.



> FWIW, my SWAG (semi-wild-assed guess) is that while Harry does destroy the Horcruces, someone else -- likely Neville -- delivers the killing blow to Voldemort. I have nothing to back up this, other than that I am a Neville Longbottom fan.




My husband and I believe so as well.  We think that Neville will save the day.  He's been a very quiet hero but he's played an important role so far.  Remember that the prophecy *could* have been about him, but when Voldy attacked Harry, he made it about Harry.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 18, 2007)

Neville is who the prophecy is talking about, and not Harry.  The Dark Lord did mark Neville...by making his parents insane (more of a metaphorical mark).  And everyone is fooled into not paying much attention to Neville and focusing on Harry.  So Neville is the one that will end up killing the Dark Lord.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 18, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Neville is who the prophecy is talking about, and not Harry.  The Dark Lord did mark Neville...by making his parents insane (more of a metaphorical mark).  And everyone is fooled into not paying much attention to Neville and focusing on Harry.  So Neville is the one that will end up killing the Dark Lord.




The problem with that theory, of course, is that Neville's parents were tortured by Bellatrix and the other fugitive Death Eaters *after* Voldy went down.  He had no part in that particular bit of unpleasantness.

Edit:  While I suppose that you could consider Bellatrix and the Death Eaters as Voldemort's catspaw, and thus have him marked that way, that's a bit...strained, especially since there's no evidence of a direct order.  Also, since Voldemort went to try and kill Harry himself, that's much more of a direct link.

Brad


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 18, 2007)

> You know how that prophecy was worded so everyone thinks Harry (and perhaps Neville Longbottom) is the only one to fulfill the conditions? Well, I think Dumbledore is not beyond lying to people, not even people like Harry. I think Draco Malfoy also qualifies somehow... maybe he was reported born at 11:58 of the night before but he really wasn't born until 12:01 or some such. Even more unlikely, maybe Neville and Draco were switched soon after birth, and neither one is truly quite who they think they are...




That's a very interesting theory!  I think that the prophecy has to be about Harry at this point, though, because as Hermoine said, the prophecy is only retrieveable by the person that it's about.  That's why Voldy needed Harry to go into the Ministry to get it.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 18, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Neville is who the prophecy is talking about, and not Harry.  The Dark Lord did mark Neville...by making his parents insane (more of a metaphorical mark).  And everyone is fooled into not paying much attention to Neville and focusing on Harry.  So Neville is the one that will end up killing the Dark Lord.




In Half Blood Prince Dumbledore states pretty clearly that the Prophecy is about Harry because of the actions of Voldemort. It has been chosen. Had things been done a different way, yes, Neville would have been the chosen one, but he wasn't. The prophesy addresses such issues as a link between them, and Harry is the one bearing the link. 

buzzard


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 19, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> The problem with that theory, of course, is that Neville's parents were tortured by Bellatrix and the other fugitive Death Eaters *after* Voldy went down.  He had no part in that particular bit of unpleasantness.
> 
> Edit:  While I suppose that you could consider Bellatrix and the Death Eaters as Voldemort's catspaw, and thus have him marked that way, that's a bit...strained, especially since there's no evidence of a direct order.  Also, since Voldemort went to try and kill Harry himself, that's much more of a direct link.
> 
> Brad




Yes, I was arguing catspaw.

Obviously Voldemort thinks Harry is the one.

But the prophecy will be found only by someone who is the subject of this prophecy.  And who finds it? Neville.  He notices it has Harry's name on the label below it.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 19, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> In Half Blood Prince Dumbledore states pretty clearly that the Prophecy is about Harry because of the actions of Voldemort. It has been chosen. Had things been done a different way, yes, Neville would have been the chosen one, but he wasn't. The prophesy addresses such issues as a link between them, and Harry is the one bearing the link.
> 
> buzzard




Yes, Dumbledore thinks it's Harry as well.  That doesn't make him right.  Neville also has a link to Voldemort.  Just...a different kind.


----------



## Bloosquig (Jul 19, 2007)

Good catch Mistwell about Neville finding the prophecy and not Harry.  Just because its not marked correctly doesn't mean the prophecy itself is confused.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 19, 2007)

Wonder if Dumbledore had anything to do with having the prophecy filed under Harry's name....


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 19, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> But the prophecy will be found only by someone who is the subject of this prophecy.  And who finds it? Neville.  He notices it has Harry's name on the label below it.



I thought only those who a prophecy was about could take the prophecy off the stand?


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 19, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> I thought only those who a prophecy was about could take the prophecy off the stand?



Exactly, which is why the prophecy is about Harry.  Voldemart marked Harry as his equal, thus making him the child spoken of.  Dumbledore has even said that it's Harry and Harry alone that has the tools for the job.  And if it wasn't about Harry, then whatever defensive measures made it so only the people directly involved in the prophecy could touch it would have zapped him.

I wonder if in retrospect those people that thought Neville was actually the prophecy boy are going to lumped in the same "delusional" category that the folks that thought Ron and Hermione would never hook up were placed.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 19, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yes, Dumbledore thinks it's Harry as well.  That doesn't make him right.  Neville also has a link to Voldemort.  Just...a different kind.




No, sorry. Your definition of link is so ambiguous as to be applicable to anyone. There is a direct and powerful link between Harry and Voldemort and that is what the prophecy was talking about. There is nothing even close for Neville. He's one of many who suffered from the depredations of Voldemort. That isn't a link, but a grievance. There's quite a collection of people who had grievances with Voldemort. There's only one with a link.  

Here's the prohpecy:
_`The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies .'_

It clearly says mark him as his equal. Where's Neville's mark? The prophecy is pretty clear about how the adversary of Voldemort would be chosen by Voldemort, and Harry was obviously chosen. 

buzzard


----------



## Ambrus (Jul 19, 2007)

I do think that Dumbledore we knew did expire, and yet I still hold out hope that he is in a sense alive.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 19, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> But the prophecy will be found only by someone who is the subject of this prophecy.  And who finds it? Neville.  He notices it has Harry's name on the label below it.




Not quite. Anyone can find the prophecy, but only the principals involved can remove it from the stand without insanity setting in. As Harry was able to remove it freely, then he is clearly the subject.


----------



## mrtauntaun (Jul 19, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Not quite. Anyone can find the prophecy, but only the principals involved can remove it from the stand without insanity setting in. As Harry was able to remove it freely, then he is clearly the subject.




But didn't Neville take it off the stand and give it to Harry?  At the very least, that is what happened in the movie.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 19, 2007)

We've already established that the filmmakers are taking liberties with the subtle nuances of the book that may become important later.


----------



## mrtauntaun (Jul 19, 2007)

Right, but did Neville take it off the stand in the book?  I don't recall, it's been awhile since I've read it.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 19, 2007)

mrtauntaun said:
			
		

> Right, but did Neville take it off the stand in the book?  I don't recall, it's been awhile since I've read it.



I'm pretty sure that, in the book, Harry picked it up. It broke, IIRC, when Harry was helping Neville on the stairs.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 19, 2007)

I really think the prophecy is now about Harry because of Voldemort's actions he made the prophecy about Harry.

Before Voldemort attacked Harry it could have been about either Harry or Neville. 

I think if Voldemort had chosen Neville the books would have been called Neville Longbottom and the Sorceror Stone.  

I don't see JK Rowling pulling this after all this time and seven books suddendly saying oh Harry you are not the one it is up to Neville to handle Voldemort. That would be a real bad ideaI think it would piss off most of your readers.

As a reader I would feel cheated to suddenly have it be about Neville.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 19, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> I wonder if in retrospect those people that thought Neville was actually the prophecy boy are going to lumped in the same "delusional" category that the folks that thought Ron and Hermione would never hook up were placed.




I'm sure that you don't mean it, but this sounds rather rude towards those people in this thread who do hope for a larger role for Neville.

Even if reporting how you think 'those other people' might respond, be careful!

Thanks


----------



## Randolpho (Jul 19, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Not quite. Anyone can find the prophecy, but only the principals involved can remove it from the stand without insanity setting in. As Harry was able to remove it freely, then he is clearly the subject.




Don't read too far into that. If Mistwell is correct (and I'm not saying he is) the prophecy could still be about Neville even though Harry can pick it up.

The spell that prevents any but the particulars from picking up the prophecy is not part of the prophecy itself but part of a secondary spell cast over either the entire room or the individual prophecy globes. It's plausible that the spell associated the prophecy with Harry incorrectly, either because that's what the caster thought or because that's what was written on the plaque.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 19, 2007)

In either case, Harry is Schrodinger's Cat and Voldemort opened the box.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 20, 2007)

Randolpho said:
			
		

> Don't read too far into that. If Mistwell is correct (and I'm not saying he is) the prophecy could still be about Neville even though Harry can pick it up.




I feel secure in my interpretation, as both Dumbledore and Rawling have said the prophecy's about Harry.


----------



## Randolpho (Jul 20, 2007)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> I feel secure in my interpretation, as both Dumbledore and Rawling have said the prophecy's about Harry.



 Oh, I agree.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 20, 2007)

Having stayed away from both spoilers and most speculation discussions, my idea is this: Harry, Voldemort and Neville form a triangle. The prophecy seems to apply equally well to either Harry or Neville. So my take is that two _must _ die; Voldemort and one of the boys. Now, I'd hate for Harry to die but at the same time... it might be a good thing. Neville is shaken out of the stifling personality that his grandmother seems to have forced him in to and becomes much more dynamic and outgoing, determined to follow in Harry's steps and become a great Auror like his parents.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 20, 2007)

> I don't see JK Rowling pulling this after all this time and seven books suddendly saying oh Harry you are not the one it is up to Neville to handle Voldemort. That would be a real bad ideaI think it would piss off most of your readers.




I agree ~ however I do think Neville has a greater role than he has had thus far.  She's been hinting at it for a long time now; it wouldn't come as a complete shock.

I believe that Neville will have a very important part to play ~ without him, Harry won't be able to defeat Voldy ~ he will do something, perhaps sacrifice himself, to help Harry do it.  I would hate to see Neville go (and my husband is prepared to hear "noooooooooo!" from the reading room) but am almost expecting it.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 20, 2007)

Bloosquig said:
			
		

> Good catch Mistwell about Neville finding the prophecy and not Harry.  Just because its not marked correctly doesn't mean the prophecy itself is confused.




It's marked with a question mark actually...even the person who labeled it wasn't sure


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 20, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> No, sorry. Your definition of link is so ambiguous as to be applicable to anyone. There is a direct and powerful link between Harry and Voldemort and that is what the prophecy was talking about. There is nothing even close for Neville. He's one of many who suffered from the depredations of Voldemort. That isn't a link, but a grievance. There's quite a collection of people who had grievances with Voldemort. There's only one with a link.
> 
> Here's the prohpecy:
> _`The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies .'_
> ...




If you find yourself using words like "obviously" and "clearly" concerning prophecy, you might want to refamiliarize yourself with the nature of prophecy 

Saying "mark him as his equal" does not have to mean "a physical mark placed on the person".

I mark you as my peer.  I have not put a physical mark on you, however.

I don't feel certain about my interpretation, but I do think it's one reasonable possible interpretation.


----------



## SnowRaven (Jul 20, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If you find yourself using words like "obviously" and "clearly" concerning prophecy, you might want to refamiliarize yourself with the nature of prophecy
> 
> Saying "mark him as his equal" does not have to mean "a physical mark placed on the person".
> 
> ...




I disagree, not because Neville lacks a scar, but because he has never really had anything that shows Vold marked him as an equal. Harry's got the scar, he's been attacked at various points, he's important to Vold. Neville probably doesn't even come up in conversation.

Neville's importance to the others around him doesn't mean he's in any way Vold's equal.


----------



## Baron Opal (Jul 22, 2007)

My wife is certain that Harry and Draco will come to an accord. Not friendship, but grudging respect. Then, Snape will distract Voldemort at a critical moment. Voldemort will kill Snape and Harry. Neville and Draco will move against Voldemort together and kill him.

We've just got our books, so we'll see.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 22, 2007)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> My wife is certain that Harry and Draco will come to an accord. Not friendship, but grudging respect. Then, Snape will distract Voldemort at a critical moment. Voldemort will kill Snape and Harry. Neville and Draco will move against Voldemort together and kill him.
> 
> We've just got our books, so we'll see.



Well, you're wife is partly right.


----------

