[spoiler] Snape's Motivations; H_K's uncanny knack

[Gary_Howard]

User Holy_Knight has accurately called so many of the events in the current OOTS storyline AND their motivations that I thought I'd start a thread, just so we could see his opinion.

Of course, it's not like H_K's the only one with a knack for prediction around here, so please, post your thoughts, ideas, and convoluted theories involving time travel or Crookshanks being behind it all (or socks).

So, what do you think Snape's motivations are?

And what about socks, anyway? There are an awful lot of references to socks in Harry Potter...

[Holy_Knight]

Well, thank you for the compliment, Gary Howard. I'm blushing again. I'll give this a shot, although I'm nervous as to whether it can live up to the hype... :)

Anyway, I guess the first thing to say is that there will be spoilers coming, so if you haven't read some of the Harry Potter series and you mean to, please read no further.



Okay. Well, let's start with the most recent thing:

I think that Snape is not a traitor after all, because Dumbledore asked him to kill him. My thoughts are that Dumbledore knew what was going on with Draco, and--being as kind-hearted as he is--decided to do whatever it took to save his life, even sacrificing his own. This would also explain the overheard argument between Dumbledore and Snape partway through "The Half-blood Prince", in which Snape was yelling at Dumbledore "I don't want to do it anymore!" There are some other reasons that could give credence to this idea too:

1. Dumbledore might have believed that the only way that they had a chance to actually defeat Voldemort would be to have a man on the inside

--This may be especially true if he thought an inside man was necessary to find the last horcrux.

--It is unlikely that anything short of so dramatic an event would have convinced Voldemort that Snape was really willing to rejoin, rather than being a spy for the Order of the Phoenix.

2. We know that Dumbledore had effectively lost a hand already. There might have been more to that, and he may have been dying. Alternately, he might have believed that seeking out the horcruxes would have so debilitated or killed him anyway, that his imminent death was inevitable. So, he figured he might as well use his death to save someone else.

(Wait, was this thread about Snape? I'm getting back to him now, promise.)

3. Snape didn't kill Harry as he was fleeing Hogwarts, despite the fact that he could have done so easily and was already exposed as a "traitor". Sure, he said something like "We have to save him so the Dark Lord can kill him", but that sounds like a pretty flimsy excuse, especially since the last time Voldemort said something like that Harry got away.

4. When Harry was being trained in Occlumency by Snape, that may have also served to help Snape practice his own defenses, which he would surely need to have against Lord Voldemort if he were to infiltrate the Death Eaters.

Okay, so I think there's a lot of reasons to think Snape isn't really a traitor, but killed Dumbledore at his own request both to save Draco and get an inside man in the Death Eaters. (Hopefully Dumbledore told somebody about the plan though, so the rest of the good guys don't screw it all up by killing Snape.)

Now, as for Snape's motivations in general, I see him as motivated largely by guilt and redemption. There's several reasons for this.

First, we know that he hated James (especially), and also that he is responsible for James and Lily's death because he told Voldemort about the prophecy. However, even though he is the type to hold a grudge, that doesn't mean that he wanted James dead. More importantly, he didn't hate Lily as far as we know, and we saw in Order of the Phoenix (I think) that Lily was actually nice to Snape when they were in school together, even to the point of chastizing James and Sirius for picking on him. So if nothing else, would probably have terrible guilt over being responsible for her death.

Second, hating James may give him, by extension, reason to hate Harry to some degree, especially insofar as Harry reminds Snape of James. But there are some crucial differences between them. For one thing, Harry is definitely not the type of person to pick on other people and make their lives miserable. On the occasions where he has had confrontations with other students, it's always been cases of self-defense or people who otherwise had been the original antagonists of the situation. Deep down, Snape has to know this--which means that on some level he has to be aware that Harry doesn't deserve a lot of the animosity Snape feels toward him. Even stronger, Harry has at many times instead been in the position of the victim in such situations, with people making his life miserable in ways that he doesn't deserve. Again, I think Snape has to know this in the back of his mind, and although he'd never admit it, this is a way in which Harry is actually much more similar to Snape himself than he is to James. Snape would never admit that to himself, but insofar as he is aware of it at all probably fuels both his animosity toward Harry, and also his guilt about his role in it.

Obviously, of course, Harry has done things which Snape has legitimate grounds to be angry about, but while that surely exacerbated his natural impulse toward him, I don't think it's enough to override the considerations above. So, in a lot of ways Snape can't help but see Harry as a nemesis of sorts--he's both a reminder of Snape's own suffering as a student, as well as of his guilt in James and Lily's death, and he can't help but mostly hate Harry while at the same time being forced at least subconsciously to view Harry in some ways as a mirror for himself.

Now, what about the Defense Against the Dark Arts job? I think this plays into his other motivations as well. Snape has probably felt the following:

--Because he was seduced by the dark arts himself for so long, he is the perfect candidate to teach students how to fight it.

--If he can teach students how to fight the Dark Arts, that will at least partially redeem him for having followed them.

--The fact that Dumbledore refused to let him have that position indicates that he still didnt' fully trust him, which reinforces Snape's feelings of guilt and shame.

--He also might be afraid that his having joined the Death Eaters before shows that he wasn't good enough in defending against the dark arts (or else he wouldn't have given into them, so to speak) and so he sees not getting the position as indicating a perceived lack of competence on his part.

So, I think he was so intent on gaining that position, because if he did, it would finally "prove" in some sense both that he was no longer a bad person, and that he was no longer the snivelling victim that got so harassed as a student.

Okay... there's probably more that could be said, but I think that's all I say for now. Here is the condensed version, I suppose:

--Snape is motivated largely by the desire to prove himself, and by a quest for redemption from his own guilt.
--He feels horribly responsible for James' and especially Lily's deaths, which is aggravated by the hatred he always felt for James.
--Despite having legitimate reasons to hate Harry, he also on some level is aware that Harry doesn't deserve it, and that Harry's life often times has been much more similar to his own than it was to James'. This simultaneously enrages Snape, and adds to his guilt.
--His obsession with the Defense Against Dark Arts job resulted both from wanting to prove himself a good person, and wanting to prove his competence and superiority over those who had previously mocked him.
--He really isn't a traitor, but killed Dumbledore as part of Dumbledore's plan to save Draco, and eventually destroy Voldemort once and for all. (This may be the difference between success and failure for Harry's quest).

I hope you guys enjoyed reading that, and it would be great to hear what you all think. :)

[CelestialStick]

User Holy_Knight has accurately called so many of the events in the current OOTS storyline AND their motivations that I thought I'd start a thread, just so we could see his opinion.

Of course, it's not like H_K's the only one with a knack for prediction around here, so please, post your thoughts, ideas, and convoluted theories involving time travel or Crookshanks being behind it all (or socks).

So, what do you think Snape's motivations are?

And what about socks, anyway? There are an awful lot of references to socks in Harry Potter...


Well I figured that Snapes is evil and has been working with the Death Eaters all along. Holy Knight, however, makes a good case for a different perspective. That would also explain to me something about which I'd been wondering since I read that Snapes killed Dumbledore: why had Snapes tried to save Harry back in the first book when the other evil professor tried to knock Harry off his broom and kill him?

What the heck are the horcruxes again?

Which one is Draco? The kid or the father?

[Sneak]

Draco = the son.
Horcruxes are basically phylacteries. They have pieces of the person's soul in them.

[CelestialStick]

Draco = the son.
Horcruxes are basically phylacteries. They have pieces of the person's soul in them.
Oh, so that mark on Harry's forehead is a horcrux with a bit of Voldemort's soul in it, right? That sounds familiar and as I recall explains a number of things that have happened across the course of the six books. Thanks.

It's funny how I can sometimes remember things from 20 or even 40 years ago better than something from five months ago. It's a sure since of aging. :-[

[Sneak]

Oh, so that mark on Harry's forehead is a horcrux with a bit of Voldemort's soul in it, right?

I don't think so, but it's possible. I really have no idea about that. But I think it's usually objects that are important to the person that are made as Horcruxes.

[theKOT]

I think I can add a bit to Holy_Knights case. Specifically, Snape niether killed nor captured Harry when he had the chance. Harry was obviously outmatched by him, and a surely Snape could have pertrified him or done something that would have immobilized him. Then he could have used a spell to move him out of hogwarts and then side-along apparated him. Capturing him in order to have Voldemort face him again would have made sense.

[CelestialStick]

I think I can add a bit to Holy_Knights case. Specifically, Snape niether killed nor captured Harry when he had the chance. Harry was obviously outmatched by him, and a surely Snape could have pertrified him or done something that would have immobilized him. Then he could have used a spell to move him out of hogwarts and then side-along apparated him. Capturing him in order to have Voldemort face him again would have made sense.
That's a good point too.

Hey Ms Gary, could I ask you again to explain your avatar quotation? Pretty please? :-*

[Gary_Howard]

That's a good point too.

Hey Ms Gary, could I ask you again to explain your avatar quotation? Pretty please? :-*

"Ms Gary" .. heehee. Well, like I said once upon a thread that I think got locked for entirely unrelated reasons, Gary Howard's a bard, and my favorite character. Anyway, his hat is kind of important to him. In one system we ran, his aura was actually hat-shaped.

You know the kind, standard bard hat with a nice, big, red ostrich plume. He's the whole package, complete with lute.

Anyway, The Doctor said it was a hat full of sky, so I elaborated.

In short: it was late, and I was tired.

----
So, about Snape, I agree with HK, mostly because of his reasons, but also because I'm naturally inclined to believe Dumbledore, even if it's on faith.

Additionally, I kind of feel like it would be a let-down if he did turn out to be evil after all, like "Hey, remember that guy who seemed evil and killed a guy and acted pretty mean and had a foreboding type of presence? Yeah, he was evil." Much more fun if they're not.

[CelestialStick]

"Ms Gary" .. heehee. Well, like I said once upon a thread that I think got locked for entirely unrelated reasons, Gary Howard's a bard, and my favorite character. Anyway, his hat is kind of important to him. In one system we ran, his aura was actually hat-shaped.

You know the kind, standard bard hat with a nice, big, red ostrich plume. He's the whole package, complete with lute.

Anyway, The Doctor said it was a hat full of sky, so I elaborated.

In short: it was late, and I was tired.

----
So, about Snape, I agree with HK, mostly because of his reasons, but also because I'm naturally inclined to believe Dumbledore, even if it's on faith.

Additionally, I kind of feel like it would be a let-down if he did turn out to be evil after all, like "Hey, remember that guy who seemed evil and killed a guy and acted pretty mean and had a foreboding type of presence? Yeah, he was evil." Much more fun if they're not.

I never did see that locked-thread reply I guess. It doesn't matter though because I still don't get the hat is full of sky thing, and I've decided it's just a commie plot anyway. :D

As far as Snapes goes, well, you know, maybe he's just evil. ;)

[TheElfLord]

I think Snape isn't evil and this was a plan of dumbledore's to keep a man inside because stopping Voldimort was the most important thing.

Now as to why J. K. would do this it goes to my idea that Snape will Kill voldimort. Why? Because in her books good guys don't kill. Its been six books with lots of fighitng and the closest thing to a good guy with a body count is Snape, with one. So either the seventh book will break the trend with an unrealistic bring out the death, or Harry will still not be able to kill the enemy. Enter Snape who kills Voldemort, ending the evil while still allowing Harry to remain the pure untainted hero.

[CelestialStick]

I think Snape isn't evil and this was a plan of dumbledore's to keep a man inside because stopping Voldimort was the most important thing.

Now as to why J. K. would do this it goes to my idea that Snape will Kill voldimort. Why? Because in her books good guys don't kill. Its been six books with lots of fighitng and the closest thing to a good guy with a body count is Snape, with one. So either the seventh book will break the trend with an unrealistic bring out the death, or Harry will still not be able to kill the enemy. Enter Snape who kills Voldemort, ending the evil while still allowing Harry to remain the pure untainted hero.
That's a very intriguing prediction. When is the final book coming out anyway?

[Spuddly]

I think they should just cast detect evil on Snape and be done with it.

[GenLee]

I agree with HK, and have had similar feelings since I finished "Half-Blood Prince." I had recently been reading some analysis of spies and their treatment in fiction. It is a truism that an undercover agent must act without emotion, or else his cover is likely to blow up.
Snape has been (and is again) an undercover agent for Dumbledore against Voldemort. He may feel that his past services have been unrewarded and unrecognized. James Potter was his tormentor in school and now that lookalike Harry is not only snotty to him, but Dumbledore's golden hope. Snape probably knows (or has been told), that Dumbledore wants to groom Harry to take down Voldemort, and Snape has had to be one of his trainers.
Look at practically every time they meet, especially in the classroom-- Snape expects only excellence from Potter, and he doesn't see it; Potter gets snippy and so does Snape. Snape, the ice-cold undercover man, loses his cool everytime; and he knows it. Most recently, when Snape has to train Potter in something special, Harry can't cut it, and they both end up yelling at each other.
Snape may feel that he is risking his life for everyone, and Harry's going to get him killed by screwing up or getting emotional, and Snape (the secret hero, in his mind) is going to be written off as just another Death Eater by everyone, and likely tortured to death by the Dark Lord.

That's my PoV, anyway.

[CelestialStick]

On the other hand, it does seem that Snape's "training" of Harry to resist Voldemort mentally had the exact opposite effect, and it's hard to escape the suspicion that Snape did this deliberately. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end, Snape turns out to be exactly what he has appeared to be all along: evil.

[Jack Squat]

What I'm about to say has been posted here before, but I don't know who it was by (I might also point out this is purely from memory, so it won't be exact)

1. Dumbledore was thrown back, while the killing curse causes instant death with no impact (think of the spider in the fourth)

2. It's known that Snape can do silent spells, so it's safe to assume that he can say one spell and do another

3. Dumbledore had a closed funeral, and a large marble monument, which was pointed out as odd by (i think) Hagrid.

just bringing this back up, whoever originally came up with this feel free to take credit, I sure don't want it if it turns out to be wrong ;)
also if someone can find the post which I'm referring to, it'd be a great help.

[CelestialStick]

What I'm about to say has been posted here before, but I don't know who it was by (I might also point out this is purely from memory, so it won't be exact)

1. Dumbledore was thrown back, while the killing curse causes instant death with no impact (think of the spider in the fourth)

2. It's known that Snape can do silent spells, so it's safe to assume that he can say one spell and do another

3. Dumbledore had a closed funeral, and a large marble monument, which was pointed out as odd by (i think) Hagrid.

just bringing this back up, whoever originally came up with this feel free to take credit, I sure don't want it if it turns out to be wrong ;)
also if someone can find the post which I'm referring to, it'd be a great help.
Well Dumbledore's potrait did appear on the wall in the headmaster's office, suggesting that he's really dead. Of course we don't really know that much about those portraits.

[RationalGoblin]

Well, I belive Dumbledore didn't die, because it said a trickle of blood came of his mouth. The killing curse leaves no blood, Potter!


*starts randomly rambling about different ideas for Harry Potter*

[CelestialStick]

Well, I belive Dumbledore didn't die, because it said a trickle of blood came of his mouth. The killing curse leaves no blood, Potter!


*starts randomly rambling about different ideas for Harry Potter*

I don't recall hearing someone tell Harry that the killing curse leaves no blood. When did that happen? For that matter I don't recall the trickle of blood either. But didn't Dumbledore fall off the top of Hogwart's anyway?

[theKOT]

Yes ,the blood was probably from falling. He would have died anyway. Oh well.

[Archonic Energy]

Well Dumbledore's potrait did appear on the wall in the headmaster's office, suggesting that he's really dead. Of course we don't really know that much about those portraits.

i think they appear when a headmaster leaves.

now if Dumble faked his own death so he could leave then a portrait would appear.

then again i don't want DD to have suvived. it would stink of a happy ending if he suddenly re-appeared to congratulate harry on his (eventual) defeat of Voldie.

[Vaynor]

http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/

[Fishies]

Awesome site.

[Vaynor]

Yeah, I know, plus it has actual evidence too, which is even better... :D

[Altair_the_Vexed]

There are basically three theories:

Two are "Let's Trick Voldemort" plans:
Dumbledore's not dead / will return from the dead.
Snape killed Dumbledore [who is really dead] as part of a pact.

And one is "Exactly what It Looks Like":
Snape has been secretly evil all along and has murdered Dumbledore.

Ms Rowling is good at giving us red herrings... The "Exactly What It Looks Like" theory is probably the least likely, cause it makes least dramatic sense. Real life sense, sure, but as a story-telling device..?

Personally, I'd rather regret it if Dumbledore came back from the dead - it's a bit too cliched - too Gandalf. I'd prefer for the headmaster to be really dead - as a sacrifice. Besides, his portrait and the pensieve mean that Harry can still have Dumbledore doing a ghostly Obi-Wan act and helping him out.

[CelestialStick]

http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/
From what I read, I'd say that he makes a good case. Of course it had occured to me too that maybe DD wasn't dead, as one can rarely trust the death of a main character in fiction. I guess we will know for sure only after the final book comes out.

[charik]

Can't say I had really considered most of HK's points, but there is some sense to them...

But I just wanted to say,
"GH, HK, Don't touch it, it's eeevviilll!!!" :D

[CelestialStick]

Can't say I had really considered most of HK's points, but there is some sense to them...

But I just wanted to say,
"GH, HK, Don't touch it, it's eeevviilll!!!" :D
Time Bandits?

[charik]

Time Bandits?
Yup ;D

I just had to make sure I listed those two in the right order.

[CelestialStick]

Yup ;D

I just had to make sure I listed those two in the right order.
What two? What's the connection between Harry Potter and Time Bandits?

[Holy_Knight]

http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/
That's a good site, but I still think the evidence points much more toward Dumbledore really being dead and having asked Snape to kill him, than him faking his death. There's a lot of problems that would have to be explained with the other theory.

By the way, because of this discussion I re-read some of The Half-Blood Prince, and I was reminded of what is probably my favorite line:

Harry: Ginny, listen... I can't be involved with you anymore. We've got to stop seeing each other. We can't be together.

Ginny: It's for some stupid, noble reason, isn't it?

--That's so great. :)

[charik]

What two? What's the connection between Harry Potter and Time Bandits?
No, no. Gary Howard and Holy Knight. Wouldn't make sense to have Holy Knight in 'Mom"'s place, now would it, or the other way around. Guess you failed your Wisdom check. :P

[Kord]

Here is my theory, not on Snape, but on where one of the Horcruxes is:

Back in the fourth (correct me if I'm wrong) book, Harry and several others are cleaning out Sirius's house. While they are searching, they discover a golden locket that no one can open.

One of the horcruxes just happens to be a golden locket. So its possible, eh? Would JK just have included that detail just for no reason?

[kriklaf]

Back in the fourth (correct me if I'm wrong) book, Harry and several others are cleaning out Sirius's house. While they are searching, they discover a golden locket that no one can open.

One of the horcruxes just happens to be a golden locket. So its possible, eh? Would JK just have included that detail just for no reason?


Damn, I can't believe I missed that--I *just*--as in this week--reread books 5 and 6 (the scene you're referring to is in 5, not 4)...and RAB has got to be Regulus Black, so I'd bet you're dead on.

As for Snapes motivations:

Right after reading the book, I thought he was evil. But, after reflecting on it (I had about 6 people over at my house the night book 6 came out-we all stayed up reading. I think I finished the book at 6:30 am) and discussing it with some friends, I too have come around to HK's point of view. First, I feel sure that Dumbledore would have found out about the Unbreakable Vow, so he knew that if Malfoy couldn't kill him, Snape would have to. Further, as HK points out, it provides the final 'proof' for some Death Eaters who, like Bellatrix, don't really trust Snape. How can they doubt him now?

However, I think the most compelling piece of evidence is how emotionally out of control Snape is when Harry confronts him at Hagrid's cottage. Snape is totally beating the pants off Harry. It would be more like him (especially if he were truly evil) to be condescending and cruel about his easy defeat of Harry's best efforts. Instead, he's furious and screaming. When Harry calls him coward, Snape goes berserk. Now, Snape's never seemed touchy about his valor to me. I just don't see him getting that upset by that particular insult if he's really going over to Voldemort. Plus, if he's evil, what does he care about the moral ramifications (above and beyond regular old murder) of killing an old, unarmed man. What I think is going on is the following: Snape had no choice about killing Dumbledore, both because he had to maintain his cover (and life!) and also, because Dumbledore asked him to do it. However, he knows that in doing so, he has destroyed his own life in the wizarding world. Already something of an outcast, now every witch and wizard will go through life thinking that Snape was a traitor. His name will be vilified forever--and yet he did what he did on Dumbledore's order and for the good of wizardkind. Worse, the person to spread the damning evidence is Harry, the son of a man Snape despises and a boy whom Snape sees as an overrated showoff who does not deserve the attention he's received and isn't even grateful for the sacrifices made for him. ( I also think that whoever said Snape probably harbors some deeply buried guilt towards Harry is probably right). So when Harry insults Snape's courage, Snape is infuriated not because he's not being given proper respect for his eeevil act, but because he killed a friend, the man who had given him a chance for a new life, and in doing so, ruined that life for good.

[Trog]

I would like to add my own Harry Potter uber-spoiler to the very good ones already here.

I claim these ideas as my own and can honestly say I have not heard it from another source. So if someone else said it first. Good for them, they figured it out too. But I never read them anywhere. Just my conclusions.

Harry's Mom and dad will come back at then end of the next book so harry can live happily ever after.

How? All the pieces have been given to us already. Mostly in book one.

First, let's remember that their shades came out of Voldemort's wand. Priori Incantatem. So they are shades now.

Next, lets remember that they were killed by the Avada Kedavra. Well, so was Voldemort. He was a shade that possessed a new body in book one. Voldemort knew he could regain a body because he was striving to do it in book one. All he needed was the stone to make the potion to come back. Dumbledore has the stone in book one. He would also have some of the potion made from it given his familiarity with Flammel. This potion could be used to bring any of the shades back to life. Including Dumbledore should his shade need to be restored. Also Voldemort at the end of book one says to Harry "Together we can bring them back." Even Voldemort knows that it can be done.

Hmm.. Also, Dumbledor dying in that book was, I'm sorry, totally predictable. I had heard the rumors the day after the book came out that a major character dies in the book. My first thought, instantly, was Dumbledore. Here's why: J.K. Rowling needed to have Dumbledor die to up the ante.

Think about it: Voldemort is back. Voldemort wants Harry dead. Dumbledor can defeat Voldemort. Keep Dumbledor in the story as a protector and Harry can never fully prove himself. Kill Dumbledor and Harry's all on his own (Oh no, say the fans, what will Harry do now?). Drama 101. Up the ante.

If Dumbledor does come back it will be using the shade method/the special properties of the Phoenix explanation. The shade method ties in with Harrry getting his parents back and would fix Dumbledor's death and give Harry a happy ending. Harry saw his parents die and should have been able to see the thestrals after he got his scar. But his parents weren't dead, they were just shades held in Voldemort's wand.

I think that somehow Dumbeldor figured out how to die in such a way that his shade could be brought back without Priori Incantatem. He and Sanpe worked it out together. Snape knows how to do it too. That way, even if Harry kills Snape (or if someone kills Snape) he can be brought back too as a Double agent hero for the good guys and get the recognition he deserves for sticking his neck out for the order for as long as he has. Add in that Cedrik can be brought back to life from a shade, Hermione finally kissing Harry, and Ron becoming famous and lusted after by all the girls and get a happy freakin ending for everyone!

And the house elves come out and sing the Ewok Yub-Yub song.

[geek_2049]

Snape is definately not evil.

Snape and DD are both proficient in Legilimens and Occumency. Before Snape kills DD they lock eyes , neccessary for Legil/Occlu iirc. DD probably told Snape the circumstances and asked Snape to kill him.

When Harry confronts Snape, Snape does not show emotion till Harry mentions Snape's betrayal of DD. Snape may have shown anger for a couple of reasons. DD drinking the potion may have been fatal, and hence Harry poisoned DD by forcing him to drink it. DD was the only one to trust Snape and Snape was effectively forced to kill him. Snape llikely gave up the Dark Arts when he became a good guy, so no more Killing Curse. So Snape used the Killing Curse on DD, the only person to trust him, because DD was poisoned and suffering a slow agonizing death caused by Potter who incidently accused Snape of killing DD.

Why did Snape kill DD? I believe DD was protecting Snape and Malfoy or more generally his students. Snape would earn the trust of Voldie and the Death Eaters. Malfoy's Geas was fulfilled.

With respect to the duel betweeen Harry and Snape, Snape shows Harry his true colors. Iirc Snape stops one of the Death Eaters from using the Crustaceous curse on Harry. When Harry and Snape battle, Snape humiliates Harry and shows Harry what it is like to engage a high level wizard/Death Eater. Throughout the duel Snape instructs Harry, and reiterates how important Silent Spell is, as it's Harry's final lesson.

I think the answer to why Snape is on the Potter Platform will be revealed through Snape's pensieve.

Dumbledore says in hbp that the only person that matters is Harry, b/c of the prophesy. DD knew the potion would cost him a life, and DD is the type of character who would not ask someone to give up their life.

[Gary_Howard]

This is the most fun I've had since the day after the book, when we had to kick our roommate Jon out to talk about it, because the poor soul had neglected to come along with us and buy his own copy.

[CelestialStick]

That's a good site, but I still think the evidence points much more toward Dumbledore really being dead and having asked Snape to kill him, than him faking his death. There's a lot of problems that would have to be explained with the other theory.

By the way, because of this discussion I re-read some of The Half-Blood Prince, and I was reminded of what is probably my favorite line:

Harry: Ginny, listen... I can't be involved with you anymore. We've got to stop seeing each other. We can't be together.

Ginny: It's for some stupid, noble reason, isn't it?

--That's so great. :)
I don't remember that. Why did he tell her that?



No, no. Gary Howard and Holy Knight. Wouldn't make sense to have Holy Knight in 'Mom"'s place, now would it, or the other way around. Guess you failed your Wisdom check. :P

Clearly someone failed his ability-score check. ;)

[Holy_Knight]

Here is my theory, not on Snape, but on where one of the Horcruxes is:

Back in the fourth (correct me if I'm wrong) book, Harry and several others are cleaning out Sirius's house. While they are searching, they discover a golden locket that no one can open.

One of the horcruxes just happens to be a golden locket. So its possible, eh? Would JK just have included that detail just for no reason?





Damn, I can't believe I missed that--I *just*--as in this week--reread books 5 and 6 (the scene you're referring to is in 5, not 4)...and RAB has got to be Regulus Black, so I'd bet you're dead on.

Wow, good catch, Kord! And I agree with Kriklaf--I also thought "R.A.B." was probably Regulus Black, but had forgotten about that locket. I may have to go re-read Book 5...



Snape stops one of the Death Eaters from using the Crustaceous curse on Harry.

Death Eater: Lobstercorpus!

Hee hee... I'm just teasing you. I thought you made some good points, geek2049. It's the "Cruciatus" curse, though. :)


I would like to add my own Harry Potter uber-spoiler to the very good ones already here.

Harry's Mom and dad will come back at then end of the next book so harry can live happily ever after.

Those are interesting ideas, Trog, but I have to disagree. Bringing back the dead seems to be one of the few things that magic can't do in Rowling's world.



This is the most fun I've had since the day after the book, when we had to kick our roommate Jon out to talk about it, because the poor soul had neglected to come along with us and buy his own copy.

Poor, foolish Jon... :D



I don't remember that. Why did he tell her that?

It was just after Dumbledore's funeral had ended. He told her he couldn't see her anymore because it was too dangerous to risk Voldemort using her against him--so it's funny because it really was "some stupid, noble reason". I love that she says that. :)

[charik]

Wow, good catch, Kord! And I agree with Kriklaf--I also thought "R.A.B." was probably Regulus Black, but had forgotten about that locket. I may have to go re-read Book 5...
I don't remember the locket at the house (I'll have to reread, like you), but I too thought immediately of Regulus when I saw the initials. I'm kind of disappointed that Harry was too dense to see that.

[theKOT]

For all theories dealing with RAB, Horcruxes and Snape, check out the mugglenet editorials section. (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/) They beat you all to the punch with your theories.

[Holy_Knight]

They beat you all to the punch with your theories.

I wouldn't say that, since I've thought this about Snape since finishing Half-Blood Prince right after it was released. That looks like a cool site though, thanks for posting it! (And granted, they did print their theories first, of course...)



I don't remember the locket at the house (I'll have to reread, like you), but I too thought immediately of Regulus when I saw the initials. I'm kind of disappointed that Harry was too dense to see that.
The thing that really got me was that Harry forgot about the mirror Sirius had given him in book 5. If he'd rememberd that, he wouldn't have had to sneak into Umbridge's office to try to talk to him through the fire, which would have prevented most of the bad stuff that happened at the end there (possibly including, I want to say, Sirius' death itself, but I'm getting a little fuzzy on the details again. Looks like I really need to reread book 5!)

[Gralamin]

hmm one thing about Horocroxes

Voldemort made 6 of them, his soul is in 7 parts.

Now what exactly happens when you commit murder, how much of your soul is split? an 8th? a quarter? Half? if it is anything over 1/7 then it would make sense to destry the horcroxes in order of creation.
Lets just say its 1/4.
first horocroxe: 25% of voldemorts sould
2nd: 25% of 75% (18.75%)
3rd: 25% of 56.25% (14.06%)
4th: 25% of 42.19% (10.55%)
5th: 25% of 31.64% (7.91%)
6th: 25% of 23.73% (5.93%)
Voldemort: 17.8%
This would take into account why killing becomes easier everytime you do it. This also means there is a huge advantage in destroying earlier ones.

Now we know Tom Riddles Diary was destroyed, and we aren't sure about the others. I would bet the locket is 1st or 2nd, the diary being whatever the locket isn't. Both of these thing are from early years and would make sense to do first.

why is it advantageous to destroy more soul? Because it would make returning more difficult and limit power. I would think so at least :P

edit: and you are correct Holy Knight, Sirius would live.

[theKOT]

Yeah HK, I was just saying that they(and I and many others) thought the same thing. Mugglenet's editorials are pretty good at summarizing viewpoints.

[Trog]

Those are interesting ideas, Trog, but I have to disagree. Bringing back the dead seems to be one of the few things that magic can't do in Rowling's world.

Uhh... Lord Voldemort?! Hellooooooooo!! Wrongo! He got hit by the Avada Kedavra the "killing curse" an got killed. And don't give me that "he's still out there barely alive" business either. If he was "barely alive" then so is anyone else that that curse hit. Shades, as mentioned above.

And the only happy ending that can be had for Harry is getting his parents back. It fixes all of his problems and will leave the reader feeling that Harry finally got what he deserved after living his whole life with the Dursleys, without birthdays, under the stairs, having Voldemort after him, having his Uncle taken away from him, etc. Mark my words. It will happen.

The implicit promise to the reader in any book (or series) is that there is a series of problems that, by the end of the book, will be solved. Especially in a book written for younger audiences, as the series originally was. Harry's problems: Lord Voldemort killed his parents and has made his life hell. Solution: No more Lord Voldemort and Harry has parents back again. Not one other desire of Harrys stacks up to this one. Not Cho. Not revenge against Voldemort. The kid wants his parents back. Remember what he saw in the mirror. Mom and Dad come back at the end. Anything less will be unsatisfying to Harry and to the fans and would not neatly wrap up the story as this ending would.

[theKOT]

Actually, JK lost her Mom, and I think showing someone dealing with their parents' death is very personal for her. Not everyone has to be alive and happy at the end of a book in order for it to be good. Most good literature is bittersweet. The characters undergo losses and grow because of them. Anyone who has read the Redwall series knows that childrens books can have characters die in them. These deaths make the book more real, emotionally evocative, and overall enjoyable. Besides, Voldemort was kept alive because his horcruxes still contained part of his soul, so when the killing curse sucked the part of his soul that was in his body out, he still has six other soul pieces remaining. He never died. Harry's mom and dad would not have made horcruxes.

[Gary_Howard]

Poor, foolish Jon... :D


Yeah, and then after that, as he read the book, we kept asking him if he'd gotten to the part where the meteor crashed into the earth, or the part where Dumbledore joins the ballet troupe, or the part where Snape loses the kissing contest to Professor MacGonagall and they get into a big tinsel-fight. Poor Jon indeed.

[Holy_Knight]

Actually, JK lost her Mom, and I think showing someone dealing with their parents' death is very personal for her. Not everyone has to be alive and happy at the end of a book in order for it to be good. Most good literature is bittersweet. The characters undergo losses and grow because of them. Anyone who has read the Redwall series knows that childrens books can have characters die in them. These deaths make the book more real, emotionally evocative, and overall enjoyable. Besides, Voldemort was kept alive because his horcruxes still contained part of his soul, so when the killing curse sucked the part of his soul that was in his body out, he still has six other soul pieces remaining. He never died. Harry's mom and dad would not have made horcruxes.
Well said, KOT. Besides which, there's nothing that guarantees that Harry will have a happy ending, or that it will be completely happy rather than filled with literal and metaphorical casualites.




Yeah, and then after that, as he read the book, we kept asking him if he'd gotten to the part where the meteor crashed into the earth, or the part where Dumbledore joins the ballet troupe, or the part where Snape loses the kissing contest to Professor MacGonagall and they get into a big tinsel-fight. Poor Jon indeed.
LOL!! That's great! :D

I did something sort of similar to my (now ex-) girlfriend when she read "Lord of the Rings". After Gandalf fell in Moria, she was like, "Wait... he's going to come back, right?" To which of course I replied: "What? No, he's dead.". She didn't want to believe me, but I stuck to my guns every time she asked about it... "Gandalf's toast!" "He got thrown into the bowels of the Earth!" "You just have to accept that he's gone." She sure gave me a funny expression once she got into Two Towers... ;D

[Trog]

Actually, JK lost her Mom, and I think showing someone dealing with their parents' death is very personal for her. Not everyone has to be alive and happy at the end of a book in order for it to be good. Most good literature is bittersweet. The characters undergo losses and grow because of them. Anyone who has read the Redwall series knows that childrens books can have characters die in them. These deaths make the book more real, emotionally evocative, and overall enjoyable. Besides, Voldemort was kept alive because his horcruxes still contained part of his soul, so when the killing curse sucked the part of his soul that was in his body out, he still has six other soul pieces remaining. He never died. Harry's mom and dad would not have made horcruxes.

Redwall is, if I recall correctly, a neverending series of books while Harry Potter is 7 books max. It has an end therefore it will need to tie things together in the end for it to actually feel like the end. Huge difference in endings there.

The only other option for Harry to "solve" his no parents "problem" is for him to decide that it isn't a problem for him anymore. But I don't think it will happen. Since Harry seems to feel the pain of the absence of family - particularly his parents throughout all the books it would be a suddden change to reverse that character trait of Harry's in one book. I'm not saying that it couldn't be done, I just don't think it will be the path taken.

I don't disagree that liturature doesn't have to have a happy ending, but given the past books and all the character relationship questions that have been posed but not answered JK will need to resolve them. Just think, what if she never addressed who Hermione likes? Would you feel that was a satisfactory ending? I'm guessing not. The problems posed must be resolved for good or ill or the storyteller has dropped the ball. JK has always tied up her loose ends for each mystery/red herring in the books and it seems unlikely that she will drop the ball on much more important character matters.

So Harry's problem must be solved one way or another by the end of the book. And Harry's the hero and we relate to him, looking, as we do, through his eyes. We want a happy ending for Harry like we want a happy ending for ourselves. Happiest ending possible for Harry? His parents come back.

Oh, and yeah, people die in books for kids. Sirius, I'm betting, is never coming back. His death was heroic and thus he deserves to stay dead. Like Sturm in Dragonlance. And I have no problem with that.

Horcruxes for Voldemort. Correct. But answer me this: What were those shades of his parents then? Figments of his imagination? I doubt it. They are still alive too in some respect.

[theKOT]

Trog, those were ghost-like projections of the people voldemort had killed. Just like ghosts, they weren't the real people, just an ectoplasmic imprint of them. An echo, if you will. Also, you don't need his parents to come back in order to "answer" any "question" or "solve" any "problem". Harry can still be feeling the pain of his parents' absence at the end of the series. Not everyone has to skip merrily into the sunset. I don't really see Harry's issues with his parents as a close-ended issue that has to be concluded. Harry has felt more angst recently over Sirius, so why does he stay dead while Harry's parents come back? Harry's parents died a herioc death too, yaknow.

[Trog]

Trog, those were ghost-like projections of the people voldemort had killed. Just like ghosts, they weren't the real people, just an ectoplasmic imprint of them. An echo, if you will. Also, you don't need his parents to come back in order to "answer" any "question" or "solve" any "problem". Harry can still be feeling the pain of his parents' absence at the end of the series. Not everyone has to skip merrily into the sunset. I don't really see Harry's issues with his parents as a close-ended issue that has to be concluded. Harry has felt more angst recently over Sirius, so why does he stay dead while Harry's parents come back? Harry's parents died a herioc death too, yaknow.

Well I think what they are is up for grabs as they were never really nailed down. Either one of us could be right.

As to your next point I already stated that there was another route to go besides bringing his parents back. It is my opinion that that option will not be taken, however.

Harry's unfortunate life is indeed a problem to be solved. Two problems, actually. One: Lord Voldemort must be destroyed so he can no longer be a disruptive presence in Harry's life. Two: Harry must find a family and a place he can call home. The Dursleys aren't this, obviously. Sirius could have been it (and Harry really wanted him to be), but he's dead now. The obvious solution would be that Harry gets along relying on his friends and the Burrow. This would be an answer to the problem but not a good one - it's too blah, too obvious. Rowling goes for the suprises in her solutions. The books are mysteries afterall, with clues to the solution of each book hidden in them. Clues to the resolution of the whole series is bound to be found in all books. Hence my theory of his parents coming back - there are those clues I mentioned.

As for skipping into the sunset there are only really three traditional throughlines to any story: The hero succeeds, the hero fails, the hero gives up (non-traditional includes: character's goal is undefined, which doesn't fit due to obvious motivations against V. and the need for a home; and The Reader Creates the Throughline - such as found in interactive fiction such as video games which this is not). Obviously I am going with the succeeds option. Which are you going for exactly?

[charik]

Personally, I don't expect Harry to feel any pain for the loss of his parents at the end of book 7.

There are two possible outcomes (they live/they die) for the two central characters (Harry/Voldemort). This gives four basic endings (they both live, H lives/V dies, V lives/H dies, they both die). She's often declared that there will be the seven books and that's it, end of story. If Harry lives, even if JKR won't write more books others will try (think of when ACD 'retired' Sherlock Holmes). If Harry dies but Voldemort lives, there will be such an outcry from the fans. Therefore, the most likely result is that both characters die at the end of book 7.

[theKOT]

I just don't see it that way. I don't think Harry succeeding is dependent upon his parents coming back from the dead.

I think you are operating so far beyond the realm of possibility I can no longer debate the issue with you.

[Trog]

I just don't see it that way. I don't think Harry succeeding is dependent upon his parents coming back from the dead.
Here then, we can agree to disagree, I feel.


I think you are operating so far beyond the realm of possibility I can no longer debate the issue with you.
If you don't want to debate anymore that's fine. I personally, was just beginning to enjoy it. As for being beyond the realm of possibility... puh-lease. My theories are just as likely and valid as anyone else's on this thread.

[theKOT]

You may think so, but I assure you 99% of the readership would call the idea of Harry's parents coming back from the dead preposterous.

What I really meant was that our perceptions of the books and their nature are so vastly different that it would be pointless for us to continue to debate. In science, you have to assume certain postulates in order to prove [i]anything[i]. These postulates are accepted without proof, and form the base for all further study. Without the same set of postulates, we can't debate.


Edit: Sorry if that sounded like I was talking down to you. I didn't mean it that way.

[Trog]

What I really meant was that our perceptions of the books and their nature are so vastly different that it would be pointless for us to continue to debate.
Ah. Well, I'll give you that. We don't see eye to eye. No biggie.


You may think so, but I assure you 99% of the readership would call the idea of Harry's parents coming back from the dead preposterous.
99%? Where is the documentation to back up your claim? ;)

[theKOT]

Well, I've never heard anyone even suggest it before, so... yeah.

[Gary_Howard]

Hmm.. It's interesting, but I do have to say that I think it would be healthier for Harry to deal with his loss rather than to magically (and yes, wonderfully) get his parents back. The Weasleys are like a family to him, after all; he's not totally alone.

And what if _Harry_ dies, hmm? What if Seamus Finnegan suddenly totally flips out, and betrays them all at the last minute as he turns into Crookshanks and puts on his Half-Blood Prince Crown in retrospect SOCKS SOCKS SOCKS.

Oh, sorry.. got a little carried away there.

[Trog]

"What if he dies?" It's a possibility - the "hero fails throughline" I mentioned above, or a heroic death are options. That certainly would reduce the possibility of follow-up books and would ensure that the Harry Potter series ends with the next one.

While it is possible I don't consider it a very probable ending as it would seriously disappoint a lot of fans (no documentation here either I'm afraid ;) ).

While I personally consider book 4 to be one of the best ones since it doesn't end on a happy note and further complicated and ups the ante story-wise, ending on a happy note at the end of thre series seems likely. Many of the other books end on a happy note with Harry getting what he deserved as the hero.

I mean, wouldn't it be sad if you were pulling for Harry to get things straightened in his life throughout all the other books only to have him die (even heroicly) at the end? You'd look back on his life and say: you know the happiest time in his life was when he was sitting there in front of the Mirror of Eduseld (spelling?) thinking he was looking into his parent's faces and feeling like he was almost there with them. How freakin' sad would that be?!

And while I know that this is how you could probably describe millions of actual people's lives around the world (they lived and were happy, perhaps, for a few short moments and then they died... like you do), it certainly isn't what makes the best escapist fiction. Could it make us reexamine our lives if it happend? It's possible, I suppose. Are the Harry Potter books really the type of literature that would suddenly switch gears from what it has given us in the past to do that? Nah.

That's my reasoning behind my "Harry doesn't die at the end" argument.

Inevitable objections? Anyone? :)

EDIT: @VAh yes, never noticed that wordplay, actually. Interesting.

[Dhavaer]

Mirror of Erised. It's just 'desire' spelled backwards.

[Kantur]

Ooooooh, I'd never noticed the mirror wordplay either, though now that I spot it, it's a kinda pun as well...and I'm sure you've all seen it, but let me have my moment of glory, they're few and far between ;)

Mirror of Erised
Erised - desirE backwards
Mirror - shows things the opposite way round (i.e. look in a mirror, raise your right hand, it appears to be the left that moves)

[Wizzardman]

More support for the Snape-is-not-evil idea:


What if Snape has been nasty towards Harry Potter over the series because Snape IS TRYING TO HELP Harry?
Think about it. Snape spent much of the first book trying to protect Harry, such as fighting the curse that was going to send Harry plummeting off his broomstick, or trying to catch Harry before he does something dangerous [like sneak into certain forbidden areas]. When Harry does do something dangerous, Snape punishes him severely [in the hopes that he won't do it again, and at least possibly to teach Harry not to get caught next time].

While Snape is incredibly lax on Draco and his friends, he's very very hard on Harry's friends. Because of this, Harry and his friends have been forced to practice and work very hard just to get by in Potions class. The results of this: Harry and most of his friends are very good at potion-making [evidenced by Harry's good OWLs], whereas Crabbe and Goyle can't do a proper potion to save their life. Additionally, Draco and his friends are convinced that Snape is on their side, because he's so nice to them in class.

Snape constantly berates Harry and his friends, and tends to do things that hurt them or make them dislike him. Because Harry constantly has an antagonist, Harry builds character; he learn very quickly to stand up for himself, and that he shouldn't expect to be treated differently just becuase he's famous.

Snape also doesn't join up in Umbridge's little Crusade; as a matter of fact, he hinders her somewhat, and doesn't completely comply with her ideas or show any support for her while she controls Hogwarts. This doesn't really help Harry in particular, of course, but it shows there's a little more to Snape's character than is originally obvious.
Finally, there's Harry's mother. Throughout most of the series, people are commenting on how Harry has his mom's eyes, but looks mostly like his father; Harry is fixated on his father throughtout a lot of the early books, trying to find out what his father was like, what he looked like, etc. Yet its his mother who seems to be more important in the story; after all, she's the one who saved Harry's life, and its her sister that takes care of him. Considering that Harry's father treated Snape horribly, yet Harry's mother was generally nice to him [unless Snape did something stupid], and considering that Snape constantly berates Harry about Harry's father's nasty nature, yet never mentions Harry's mom [to the point of avoiding talking about her], it seems fairly likely that Snape was in love with her [and Rowling was foreshadowing this by keeping Harry's mom in the background]. This could also be why Snape calls Harry's Mom a 'filthy mud-blood' in the memory sequence--Snape hates his own heritage [his horrible muggle father], and had horribly confused feelings towards Harry's Mom. That's probably why Snape pulled the memory out of his head--not to shield Harry from what his father did, or to avoid embarassment for what happened to young Snape, but because Snape feels guilty for calling Harry's Mom a mudblood.

Just my 2 cents. Hopefully this message wasnt' too confusing.

[Don Beegles]

Well, I had been a diehard, "Snape's Evil" fan, mostly just because the inability to directly place him was pissing me off, but after reading this thread and the DIND website, I am almost convinced to the other extreme.


I was just to say a word or to about the idea that Harry's parents will return in the seventh book. I don't think this at all likely, because they are dead and there it has been repeated throughout teh books that magic can't ressurect people.

Trog said that because Voldemort came back from the dead is reason enough that other people can. But you must remember that Voldemort never died: he had the Horcruxes made before he faced the Potters. When his curse did rebound, all that happened was that his body died, but his spirit, his "soul" if you will, survived in the Diary, the Locket, the Snake, the Cup, et al. Besides, it is a moot point whether or not he actually died. I am not sure whether it says that the curse rebounded fully on him, but it is entirely probable that when the Killing Curse rebounded from its original target it produced an effect not unlike that caused when one looks at a basilisk indirectly, i.e. one doesn't get the full effect of the blow, in which case Voldemort didn't die and come back, he just left his body until he could find a more suitable match.

As for the shades that appeared from Voldemort's wand, these were not actually ghosts of Harry's parents. They were less than ghosts, and more like magical portraits or photographs. It is indisputable that magical pictures can talk and act just like the person in question, but does that mean that part of the person's soul is actually in the picture, like it is in a Horcrux. No, I think it more likely that it is just a copy of that person's personality, almost like the copies that are used in Tad William's Otherland series to duplicate teh personalities of Jongleur and the others.

If this is taken to be the case for magical images of people, than it must be used for these shades, which were produced by the [i]Priori Incantatem[i] spell. THey were jsut images of the last spells Voldemort used, which just happened to have been to kill Cedric, Frank, Bertha, James and Lilly. These images acted like the person in question and supported Harry because that is what the person would have done when tey were alive, not because they were any portion of the person that could have been manipulated to bring that person back to life.

Of course, maybe the image and personality could be inserted into a body and so bring a simulacrum of the person to life, but that seems to much like the infiri for my tastes, and besides, my ideas regarding magical pictures are just conjecture, not supported by BAW(books as written) and JK has never used deus ex machina of that sort without some prior reference or establishment of possiblity.


Well, that was longer than I expected, but that is my assessment of teh Lilly/James reincarnation theory.

[Trog]

@^ OMG that signature is freakin hilarious! LMAO!

Hmm. You know I had never considered comparing those shades to the animated photos. An intersting point - they are not alive and yet still act as their subject would.

I still would like to point to Voldemort saying "Together, Harry, we can bring them back!" in book one. Since Voldemort knew how to keep himself alive and knows many other uber-powerful spells it is quite possible that he could have been telling the truth and that Harry's parents can be brought back.

Does anyone know - has there been any official explanation of how those portraits work?

[Don Beegles]

Thanks. I'd liek to thank, heck, I can't remember exactly who, but it was someone from the Ilithid Hanky-Panky thread. :)

To be honest, I hadn't considered the images like the portraits (for which, I can't recall any official explanation, though that's not to say there hasn't been any) until I started writing this, but I realized that it was a rather apt description.

The trouble with Voldemort's quote in the Sorcerer's Stone is that it could be interpreted as an offer that could come true or as a bluff. He may have has some way of bringing them back, or he may have been using the fact that "he came back" to make it seem like he could bring them back as well. I would probably be inclined to think the first, but there has been nothing in any of the books, IIRC, that could be interpreted as being used to bring a fully good person back to life if they were atually dead, and all of her unexpected twists up to this point have been consistent with things she said before so that you could go back in teh other books and say "Oh, man after reading this agin, how did I not see that coming." Of course, again, there could be something I missed, but it would probably be something decently prominent to change a detail that has been vital to teh story from day 1- that his parents are dead.

That's not to say it's impossible. I just think it's very unlikely. Less likely than Sirius coming back because it's not fully explained what is behind the veil, whereas we know the Killing Curse kills and we know it was used on the Potters.

[Gary_Howard]

More support for the Snape-is-not-evil idea:


What if Snape has been nasty towards Harry Potter over the series because Snape IS TRYING TO HELP Harry?
Think about it. Snape spent much of the first book trying to protect Harry, such as fighting the curse that was going to send Harry plummeting off his broomstick, or trying to catch Harry before he does something dangerous [like sneak into certain forbidden areas]. When Harry does do something dangerous, Snape punishes him severely [in the hopes that he won't do it again, and at least possibly to teach Harry not to get caught next time].

While Snape is incredibly lax on Draco and his friends, he's very very hard on Harry's friends. Because of this, Harry and his friends have been forced to practice and work very hard just to get by in Potions class. The results of this: Harry and most of his friends are very good at potion-making [evidenced by Harry's good OWLs], whereas Crabbe and Goyle can't do a proper potion to save their life. Additionally, Draco and his friends are convinced that Snape is on their side, because he's so nice to them in class.
[etc]

I actually do and always have thought Snape was Good (ever since the reveal in the first book where he's not the bad guy), but Harry and Draco's respective Potionsing abilities had not crossed my mind. Good one.

[TheElfLord]

Snape is evil

"The world isn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, Harry"
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenex

I don't think Snape is a true Death Eater, I think he is a spy for the OotP. At the same time, I wouldn't call Snape good. He is mean cruel, provokes other members, and torments our already tormented protagonist. Sometimes evil people work on the side of good, for example, Stalin in WWII. Even if it turns out that Snape was selflessy sacraficing himself and his good name to help the good guys, his conduct over the years does not place him in the Good catagory. He may not be as evil as he once was, but he is not a good person. He, like Dolorus Umbridge, is one of those evil people who are not Death Eaters.

[Don Beegles]

Point taken, TEL. Snape is certainly not good, he is more like LE, if I were to define him.

I think the discussion needs to be calrified: the question is not Is Snape good or evil, so much as , Is Snape working completely for Hogwarts or against it?

[Gary_Howard]

You would say that someone who devotes his life to the service of a good cause, and more likely than not dies as a vital part of saving the world is still not redeemed because he wasn't very nice?

I _can_ see where you're coming from. Snape may be acting for the greater good but with a totally callous attitude towards the feelings of individual human beings, and if that's the case, I'd still put him at neutral.. maybe depending on his psychological reasoning for acting that way and motivations. My theory is that that isn't what's going on entirely - I think a lot of the "cruel" thing is an act, as he's in a good position to do it, and he HAS to act like a jerk, or nobody will believe he could possibly be a DE (especially not the DEs. Actually, I think I've just raised another interesting point - is there anyone in the books who's just as sweet as punch, but who is actually just putting on a very good act, and working for the bad guys? And if not, why not? I would call that Evil.)

I just wouldn't call a man "evil" just because as he follows the (whatever you want to call it path of righteousness and being a protector of the helpless and that kind of thing) he happens to be mean-tempered.

Edit: If some setences still don't make sense syntactically, it's because my mate showed up and I had to leave before rereading all the prepositions.

Edit edit: so as not to doublepost:


I think the discussion needs to be calrified: the question is not Is Snape good or evil, so much as , Is Snape working completely for Hogwarts or against it?

Well, one discussion will inevitably lead to the other. :D

[CelestialStick]

Snape is evil

"The world isn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, Harry"
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenex

I don't think Snape is a true Death Eater, I think he is a spy for the OotP. At the same time, I wouldn't call Snape good. He is mean cruel, provokes other members, and torments our already tormented protagonist. Sometimes evil people work on the side of good, for example, Stalin in WWII. Even if it turns out that Snape was selflessy sacraficing himself and his good name to help the good guys, his conduct over the years does not place him in the Good catagory. He may not be as evil as he once was, but he is not a good person. He, like Dolorus Umbridge, is one of those evil people who are not Death Eaters.

Stalin didn't "work on the side of good" during World War II. He and Hilter were allies, under the Molotov-Von Rippentrop Pact, until Hilter invaded the Soviet Union. Even after the invasion, Stalin refused to enter the war against Japan on our side, and acted as a go-between in US-Japanese relations, making sure that neither side knew the other's willingess to make peace, so as to prolonge the war as long as possible.

[Don Beegles]

I don't have tim eo tlook at HP related discussion, but I'm having fun on this thread, adn I jsut want to politely request tha twe nix the political discussion, because the mods generally frown on things like that. The pointis made, let's not nitpick.

[Holy_Knight]

Snape is evil

"The world isn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, Harry"

On a related note, you know what I've been wanting to see in the Harry Potter books for a while now? A Slytherin good guy. Sure, Slytherin is the house most conducive to evil, but did you notice that (as far as I can tell, anyway) EVERY Slytherin student that we know anything about is rotten to the core? Surely it can't be the case that ALL the students that get sorted into Slytherin are naturally bad. There have been a few professors that used to be in Slytherin that are depicted in at least a somewhat positive light--Snape to some extent, obviously; less controversially Slughorn (he was in Slytherin, wasn't he?), and I think some others. But there's never been a Slytherin student while Harry's been there that has been shown with good character traits. Who else would like to see a character who is a good person despite being ambitious enough to be in Slytherin?

[Trog]

Who else would like to see a character who is a good person despite being ambitious enough to be in Slytherin?

Ooo! I would. He (or she) would probably be an outcast and treated horribly just like Harry is by Malfoy. A kind of good slytheryn geek. If they were ambitious they might try to befriend Harry since he seems to attact lots of powerful people. That'd be cool.

And as far as Snape: good or evil: To quote Batman: "It's not who I am underneath. It's what I do that defines me." If Snape acts like a jerk to everyone, then he's a jerk, surely. Since he was a spy for the OotP then that counts as a good action. He may, at this point, be good. But then he turns on the Order and kills D. This action makes him is two-faced no matter who he ends up working for in the end. So he's an ass. I don't care if he really is that picked on kid back in school on the inside. Who freakin isn't? Boo-freakity-Hoo. No sympathy for you, Snape. You're an ass. But being one doesn't make him evil.

The act of murdering D, though, does make him evil. You can debate wether or not D's dead if you want. For right now, until the next book comes out and reveals which side he was really working for, I call him EVIL!

[Gary_Howard]

On a related note, you know what I've been wanting to see in the Harry Potter books for a while now? A Slytherin good guy. Sure, Slytherin is the house most conducive to evil, but did you notice that (as far as I can tell, anyway) EVERY Slytherin student that we know anything about is rotten to the core? Surely it can't be the case that ALL the students that get sorted into Slytherin are naturally bad. There have been a few professors that used to be in Slytherin that are depicted in at least a somewhat positive light--Snape to some extent, obviously; less controversially Slughorn (he was in Slytherin, wasn't he?), and I think some others. But there's never been a Slytherin student while Harry's been there that has been shown with good character traits. Who else would like to see a character who is a good person despite being ambitious enough to be in Slytherin?


Or a Gryffindor bad guy, besides Pettigrew, whose presence in Gryffindor house is totally unexplainable by his current personality? Yeah, me too.

[Trog]

Pettigrew was in Gryffindor? Musta missed that.

[Gary_Howard]

Pettigrew was in Gryffindor? Musta missed that.

*looks up*

Confirmed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pettigrew

But WHY? He only gives his hand to Voldie to suck up and get further up in the chain of command. He's a leech to his friends, and he turns sides as soon as it looks like it would be easier to stay alive as a member of the other side, killing a bunch of innocents in the process. What part of that says "Gryffindor"?

[charik]

*looks up*

Confirmed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pettigrew
Unless the author of that article is JKR, or cites an explicit reference from the series (or her website, I'll have to find that), it proves nothing. I don't recall that she ever explicitly states which house Pettigrew belonged to; we do know for certain that the four hung out together a lot, that three were in Gryf, and that in general a student's circle of friends would be of the same house.

[Don Beegles]

Hmm, that is interesting about Pettigrew, because he has done nothing that would make him Gryffindor, and even from what we know of his school years from Snape's Pensieve, he was more of a Hufflepuff of Slytherin.

But then again, as I mentioned before, all of her tists have base in previously mentioned material, and the reverse to some extent. For instance, Neville didn't seem Gryffindor material at first, but he has really shaped up, especially around Book 5. I wouldn't be surprised if Pettigrew does reveal a courageous side in the Last Book, because I don't think JKR would leave such a blarign inconsistency unresolved.

[Gary_Howard]

Unless the author of that article is JKR, or cites an explicit reference from the series (or her website, I'll have to find that), it proves nothing. I don't recall that she ever explicitly states which house Pettigrew belonged to; we do know for certain that the four hung out together a lot, that three were in Gryf, and that in general a student's circle of friends would be of the same house.

Sorry. I do _remember_ reading it, if that helps.

[Holy_Knight]

For instance, Neville didn't seem Gryffindor material at first, but he has really shaped up, especially around Book 5. I wouldn't be surprised if Pettigrew does reveal a courageous side in the Last Book, because I don't think JKR would leave such a blarign inconsistency unresolved.
I agree about Neville. As for Pettigrew, though, maybe instead he started out fairly brave, but degenerated to become increasingly cowardly and snivelling as time went on. He may have had a lot of potential that he sadly didn't live up to.

[Gary_Howard]

I agree about Neville. As for Pettigrew, though, maybe instead he started out fairly brave, but degenerated to become increasingly cowardly and snivelling as time went on. He may have had a lot of potential that he sadly didn't live up to.

That's definitely something I'd like to have seen explored in the books... but maybe she just didn't want to get too sidetracked, or make the books any longer than they already are. Still, the "unmet potential" thing is really sad - ever seen the Inquisitor episode of Red Dwarf? (not to digress TOO far, of course... :p)

[BlythraB]

Okay, so I think there's a lot of reasons to think Snape isn't really a traitor, but killed Dumbledore at his own request both to save Draco and get an inside man in the Death Eaters. (Hopefully Dumbledore told somebody about the plan though, so the rest of the good guys don't screw it all up by killing Snape.)
I bet he told his brother, Aberforth. I mean, there's no reason for us to have met him unless he plays a part (for those of you who don't know, J. K. said that the bartender in the Hog's Head is Aberforth)

As for Snape, I still belive he's good. If he had done what he did in the seventh book instead oof the sixth, I would believe he is evil, but there's way too much character development for that. Look at it from the author's point of view.

[Shadow_of_Light]

(SPOILER WARNING, though anyone reading this thread who hasn't read the HP books is probably hopelessly spoiled by now ;))

I don't think Snape is evil. On one side, yes, I inclined to 'just trust' Dumbledore's opinion of the guy, but on the other, Snape's had a helluvalot of time to do a crapload of damage and he hasn't. Not only has he saved Harry's life, he has also (apparently) saved Dumbledore's (after Dumbledore found one of Voldemort's horcruxes).

But anyway... what is his motivation for being on the good side? He was indirectly responsible for the targetting of Harry's parents' deaths. While we know he hated James, it's possible his feelings for Lilly (who was said to be unusually kind to everyone) were such that he has always felt a heavy remorse for his part in what happened.

On the other hand, Snape could have been just like Draco. While Draco has people he hates and people he calls 'friends', we see he's just not, in his heart, a cold-blooded killer. Once people see the consequences of their actions, it can completely turn them around.

Snape's motivation could be redemption for his own wrongs as well as vengeance against Voldemort. It's hard to see how the redemption side will work out for him when it seems likely none of the 'good guys' will ever trust him now that Dumbledore's dead. However, there's a good chance that he could stop Draco from going bad. Maybe that would be redemption enough for him...

[Shadow_of_Light]

Also support for Snape being Not Evil (I'll stay out of the Good vs Evil debate for now ^^), aka Snape being on the side of Hogwarts, aka Snape not being on Voldemort's side:

Snape saves Harry's life.

Snape alerts the Order of the Phoenix to save Harry *from the Death Eaters*.

Snape (apparently) saves Dumbledore's life when Dumbledore finds the ring Horcrux.

Ok, so he's not an all-around-good-guy. He doesn't give his students chocolate frogs. But you can have a nasty temperament and not be 'evil'. An evil person would have let Harry die. An evil person wouldn't have borne an expression of utter self-loathing when he killed Dumbledore (note: the exact same expression Harry himself wore when forcing Dumbledore to drink that potion covering the locket).

Also, Alan Rickman's just too cool to be a lackey. :p

[Gary_Howard]

lol.. Now, now. Alan Rickman is not Snape, and Tom Felton isn't Draco. :p

But yeah. Totally agreed.

And while he _isn't_ Snape.. he makes a dem fine one at that.

[charik]

Snape alerts the Order of the Phoenix to save Harry *from the Death Eaters*.
This is the only one I really want to comment on. I doubt Snape cared either way what happened to Harry on this one; he, like Kreacher, saw it as a way to get rid of Sirius.

[Trog]

One more note on my "Harry's parents will return theory." Both Harry's and Voldemort's wands have phoenix feathers in them.

Now, Rowling could have chosen to put anything for the core of their wands back in the first book. But don't you think that it's a bit of a coincidence that the magical creature chosen is one that returns from its own death? In generating those echos or shades of Harry's parents when Harry and Big V were locking wands with one another at the end of Book 4, could it be that the Priori Incantatem did more than just produce an echo? Food for thought! Yet more evidence suggests this will be the ending!

[Shadow_of_Light]

This is the only one I really want to comment on. I doubt Snape cared either way what happened to Harry on this one; he, like Kreacher, saw it as a way to get rid of Sirius.

At the cost of the prophecy, and ruining Voldemort's plans for gaining it? Considering Snape himself only managed to hear a part of the prophecy, that would strike me as an uncharacterically stupid stunt to pull. :) Especially since there was no guarantee at all it would lead to Sirius' death.

Snape could just as easily have alerted Sirius to the matter *after* the Prophecy was in Voldemort's hands (whether or not Harry was already dead).

[McDeath]

Ten bucks says Harry is the last Horcrux. :P

Now wouldn't that be a whizbang ending:
Harry: "Draco, kill me!"
Draco: "All right!"

[Don Beegles]

Well, yeah, that should be no-brainer. It is the 'least-likely' thing never really mentioned, just hinted at; therefore, you know that it has to be true.

[CelestialStick]

Ten bucks says Harry is the last Horcrux. :P

I thought that part was obvious.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Posted by: McDeath Posted on: Jun 12th, 2006, 9:04am
Ten bucks says Harry is the last Horcrux.

I thought that part was obvious.

I dunno - old Voldemort does seem to spend a lot of energy on trying to kill Harry after the Tri Wizard Tournament. Hardly something you'd do to your own Horcrux. Also, can a Horcrux already contain a living soul? We don't know, but it seems unlikely.

[Don Beegles]

But does it actually say that Voldemort is trying to kill Harry? We know he wanted to capture him when he was rebuilding his body, but does he actually try to kill him? It has been a long time since I've read those particular books, I could be wrong.

And I think maybe V wanted Harry to make his body was not just because he has his mom's protection, but also because if he creates himself with the blood of a person who has his soul in him, that could make him more powerful than he was before.

[coron]

About this argument all of you have very good points but I still believe Dumbledore is alive in some way or another

Posibility 1: We kno that Snape can cast spells without saying anyhting, perhaps he said Aveda Kadavra, but casted something else, no ones ever did actually see Dumbledore in his smancy marbel coffin.

Possibilty 2 (my favorite): In one of the books, I don't rememeber which, Harry said something along the lines of "Dumbledore will remain strong only as long as those close to him remain loyal to him" this may mean nothing, but She is a good enough writer that if say the order and Harry and all are convinced h e's dead, he's dead, but if they don't he m ay come back as a ghost, or something, also something Dumbledore tought Harry but we never saw will come up, I am very excited for 7/7/07 (tha date it comes out) to come.

Also in the next book we will figure out who wrote in the locket thing horcrux, and I have a feeling we will see a l ot more of Dumbledores brother who has been previously mentioned only once before.

[OffSide7]

I'm sure a lot of this has been said, but I could never resist adding my two cents on this topic, and I really don't have the time to read 7 pages of comments. What little I did read on the first page, kudos, good points all.

One. Many incidents throughout all of the books give us a clear message from JKR. "Just trust Dumbledore, stupid."

Does anyone really think Draco beat him in that mini duel before his death? Does anyone really think Dumbledore's best way to protect Harry was to freeze him? Come on. We know Dumbledore is trusting and sometimes a little naive, but I doubt he really thought giving up would somehow help Draco do the right thing or something.

And if Snape was really evil, I don't think Dumbledore would have trusted him with a teaching position, it's very hard to fool Dumbledore. On the other hand, Snape is good at occlumency...

Two. Dumbledore, even wandless, was brave against all of the Death Eaters, but when Snape came, he actually pleaded. Two interpretations: one, he thought Snape would help him and was only really scared when he thought Snape wouldn't help. Two, he pleaded because he wanted Snape to kill him and thought Snape might back out.

I think the latter is much more fitting with Dumbledore's personality, but in the end it's inconclusive.

Three. The infamous story Hagrid tells about Snape saying Dumbledore asks too much of him. Well, JKRowling doesn't do much in terms of red herrings, but she does purposely mislead us. Also inconclusive.


Four. Dumbledore's best plan involves getting the world's best defense against Voldemort, ie himself, killed? Come on, what kind of plan is that? Sure, Harry might kill Voldemort (honestly, I find the whole explanation about why it ought to be Harry and not Dumbledore a bit hokey, but that's just me.) but in the meantime, he and his Deatheaters are wreaking havoc! Harry can't protect people nearly as well in the meantime! Also, Dumbledore didn't really teach Harry how to track down horcruxes. Sure, look in places of significance to V... and then what? That's about it. Harry wouldn't have gotten past any of the obstacles protecting the fake locket without Dumbledore, are the others going to be any easier?

Also, it's been said, but I really hope Dumbledore told someone else about his plan to die, if it was a plan, because someone may just kill Snape. Most of the Order seems to have taken it as a nasty shock. ...Unless someone's acting? Hmm. Well, someone ought to tell Harry at some point, lest he figure out a way to kill him. Moody just might, I hope Moody knows. If Dumbledore did plan it.

One theory I really like is that he was already dying, might as well use his death to get Snape really in there good, though, really, it seems like Snape was already pretty much well established in the Death Eaters. Maybe he needs to be in a position of even greater trust and importance to V... perhaps so he can find out where the other Horcruxes are and pass that on to Harry?

One literary, out-of-book reason... JKRowling likes those kinds of twists. Like someone said, if you think he's evil and he turns out to be evil, it's not as fun. I think she likes Snape too much. I know I do.

On Harry being a horcrux- why the hell would V put a piece of his soul in something he wanted to destroy? Unless!! He was using Harry's death to create the last one, and when the spell backfired, it was too late to change the horcrux spell, and he inadvertantly made Harry a horcrux. That would set Harry up for a nice heroic suicide in book 7. JKR has said he may not survive over and over.

Diagnosis: also inconclusive. Grrr.

One more thing. Harry's not bad at magic, and he's good at DADA, but he ain't brilliant. If I were him, I'd stick around for more ejjudmucashun at Hogwarts. Couldn't hurt.

Oh, also, I know this is old but it's a favorite theory of mine: who warned the Potters that V was coming after them, so they knew to go into hiding in the first place? Could it be.... Snape? Maybe that was his action that really convinced Dumbledore he had turned?

Oh, one other thing... Dumbledore's dead. He is because mentors die so heros can acheive their full potential. Also, death would be less scary if people came back. I read this gawd awful online comic where characters have died multiple times, only for it to turn out to be an illusion. Now I don't give a horse's patootie if anyone appears to be in any danger. That's one shoddy writer. I'm actually kinda hoping the main character and his stupid girlfriend will die. But they won't.

Those are literary reasons... In-book reasons? We saw the body, I'm sure someone like McGonagall could have seen through it if it was fake (unless she was in on the hoax.) Ok, so you can't ever really prove something is as it is in a magical world with illusions that has no real set of 100% consistent laws, but then everything could be an illusion by that argument. ...Mmm... I'm convinced he's dead.

One more thing... I can't really say for sure why any of the bad guys didn't just kill Harry right out... I accept that up until they knew for sure he was back that they wouldn't bother risking attacking Dumbledore's pet, who knows what kind of magical watchdogs he has on Harry, and I can accept that after duel between Harry and V that V wants to kill Harry himself... (And I don't even think of this as one of those tacky Bad Guy Being Dumb moments... you can totally see, especially in the movie, why V really needs to be the one to kill Harry, he has to save face for himself and his followers... Imagine him trying to live ("live") with the knowledge he wasn't the one to kill Harry? Uh-uh.)

I think we just have to accept that it simply didn't happen, sort of the way we have to accept Barty Crouch Jr. not making Harry's pillow a portkey instead of the trophy.

As to any theories on Harry's parents coming back, ain't gonna happen. No way. They're dead, and they did not have horcruxes. V never really died, it's not the same thing. I just had to reiterate that.

Lots of people have been taking credit all over the web for the RAB is Regulus and the locket in the Black house is the real horcrux, I've seen it on many sites for a very long time... Personally, I believe it.

Oh, and I think if Snape really wanted to push Harry to be his best, there are better ways, more subtle ways, to do it besides being a tyrant and a bully. I really believe that Snape does have a side to him that is thoroughly immature and unprofessional, and frankly, quite petty and unfair. But you know what? That's part of what makes him a non-cliche, interesting, real person. And I still love him.

[Shadow_of_Light]

I thought that part was obvious.I dunno - old Voldemort does seem to spend a lot of energy on trying to kill Harry after the Tri Wizard Tournament. Hardly something you'd do to your own Horcrux. Also, can a Horcrux already contain a living soul? We don't know, but it seems unlikely.


A Horcrux can be a living being according to Dumbledore, and he's speculated with Harry that Voldemort's pet snake is such a Horcrux.

Good point about 'why would Voldemort try to kill Harry if Harry was one of his own Horcruxes'. It's pretty certain Voldemort has been trying to kill Harry, as there's no other reason he'd try to use the Avada Kedavra curse on him (again) in Goblet of Fire.

Voldemort: Hey, now that I'm alive again, let's see if I can kill you this time! *ZAP!*

[Gary_Howard]

I'm sure a lot of this has been said, but I could never resist adding my two cents on this topic, and I really don't have the time to read 7 pages of comments. What little I did read on the first page, kudos, good points all.
...

I think we just have to accept that it simply didn't happen, sort of the way we have to accept Barty Crouch Jr. not making Harry's pillow a portkey instead of the trophy.

Long post for someone who doesn't want to read the rest of the thread, eh? :p (No hard feelings, of course! I enjoyed reading what you had to say. :))

The whole "not making Harry's socks/pillow/potions notebook the portkey" thing drives a friend and I CRAZY. Additionally, why does everyone gather in a huge stadium and sit down to watch the competitors in the last task, when all they can see is hedge maze? Isn't that kind of a boring sporting event - watch the hedge maze from very far away?

Scratch that - it's not a boring sporting event. It's the best Monty Python sketch ever.

"Watching a Hedge Maze from Very Far Away!"

[OffSide7]

Heh heh, you're right! That was a long post, but to be fair, I ended up going back and reading a lot from the other pages and adding little tid bits as I read.

You know, JK Rowling sometimes allows readers to vote on what questions about the books she answers on her website, maybe if enough people suggest it there, she'll put it as an option and we can vote for it and get an answer?

[Don Beegles]

I don't have much to add by way of the actual discussion, but this was just great.


Scratch that - it's not a boring sporting event. It's the best Monty Python sketch ever.

"Watching a Hedge Maze from Very Far Away!"

*You see a hedge maze in the ditance, and you can barely make out that it has a pattern, but you can't see the people.*

"And Parkins is taking a left, and right, a left, right , a right, a left, but nooo, he's reached a dead end, and he's turning around, taking a left, a left, a left, and right, a left, another left, and what's this? He's done, Parkins has just won the Hedge maze competition."

*And then the hedge maze catches fire for no discernable reason.*

[Gary_Howard]

I don't have much to add by way of the actual discussion, but this was just great.


*You see a hedge maze in the ditance, and you can barely make out that it has a pattern, but you can't see the people.*

"And Parkins is taking a left, and right, a left, right , a right, a left, but nooo, he's reached a dead end, and he's turning around, taking a left, a left, a left, and right, a left, another left, and what's this? He's done, Parkins has just won the Hedge maze competition."

*And then the hedge maze catches fire for no discernable reason.*

Hah! Excellent. I laughed out loud.

You know, I think we (as a fanbase) need something more about the next book to debate about. "Who is the Half-Blood Prince?" was a good one, but I'm starting to feel like I've seen every debate possibility exhausted. I guess that's the problem with predictions.

[tyr]

Here's one that's out there. I've seen it here and there. The support isn't very good, but I wonder about it. What if Snape loved Lily? That might explain why that was Snape's Worst Memory (calling Lily a mudblood and seeing her response), and maybe that has something to do with Dumbledore's trust in him. And Snape really loses it when Harry calls him a coward. Maybe that's because Harry has his mother's eyes, and Snape had a flashback?

In other news, Monty Python rox my sox.

[Ikkitosen]

About Voldemort killing Harry; it's win-win. If he kills him then fine, he loses one of several bits of soul, but he kills the only guy who has ever beaten him. If he fails then he can't die 'cos Harry is a Horcrux! Assuming he is, of course, a Horcrux.

About other baddies not killing Harry; maybe Voldemort has a way to reclaim his bit of soul (again, assuming Harry is a Horcrux) if he kills Harry a certain way or is near enough to him when he dies or whatever. He certainly wouldn't share this knowledge of Horcruxes with his followers, so he'd just say "he's mine" and leave it at that.

[CelestialStick]

About Voldemort killing Harry; it's win-win. If he kills him then fine, he loses one of several bits of soul, but he kills the only guy who has ever beaten him. If he fails then he can't die 'cos Harry is a Horcrux! Assuming he is, of course, a Horcrux.

About other baddies not killing Harry; maybe Voldemort has a way to reclaim his bit of soul (again, assuming Harry is a Horcrux) if he kills Harry a certain way or is near enough to him when he dies or whatever. He certainly wouldn't share this knowledge of Horcruxes with his followers, so he'd just say "he's mine" and leave it at that.
Maybe Voldemort doesn't (or didn't) know that Harry is one of the Horcruxes.

[baerun]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-627potter,0,138395.story?coll=sfla-features-food&track=mostemailedlink

Didn't want to start a whole new topic so I added this link, JK has announced that 2 characters will die in the next book, speculations on who?

[Xerillum]

my two cents are:

tat the mirror of erised is desire backwards, and a mirror reverses it, so it is what tyour subconcious desires.

I have some ideas as to the horcruxes-
1- the diary
2-the locket
3-the mirror of erised
4-Voldemort'd father's grave. it seems a likely place
5-harry's scar. it hurts when voldemort kills, so killing may increase VDM's power, causing him to store it in a horcrux i.e. harry's scar.
as for the others, i have no clue.

there may be more than 7 books, you know. maybe more. who knows?

[BelkarsDagger]

Yes, a Horcrux can contain a living soul, but it is ill-advised because of the chance of that soul dying of age, whatever. JKRowling announced the other day that 2 main characters will die in this last book. It's obviously Harry and Voldemort, duh.

[Gary_Howard]

my two cents are:

tat the mirror of erised is desire backwards, and a mirror reverses it, so it is what tyour subconcious desires.

I have some ideas as to the horcruxes-
1- the diary
2-the locket
3-the mirror of erised
4-Voldemort'd father's grave. it seems a likely place
5-harry's scar. it hurts when voldemort kills, so killing may increase VDM's power, causing him to store it in a horcrux i.e. harry's scar.
as for the others, i have no clue.

there may be more than 7 books, you know. maybe more. who knows?






Well, Rowling has stated, posted, yelled, and pleaded that No Matter What There Will Be No More Harry Potter Books After Seven So Stop Asking, so it would come as a pretty enormous shock to see another one.

Still, that would be a pretty AWESOME trick. Just publish it and get it on shelves, no announcement, nothing. At first, people would think it was a scam, Rowling keeps silent for a few weeks, then "Oh! Yeah, that WAS me," and sales boom. And everyone gets a happy surprise.

[Don Beegles]

Hmm. I had the whole six horcruxes figured out to my satisfaction right after I read the sixth book, but I can't find my copy to reread it, so I can't check up and try to remember. I think I had:

1)Harry
2)Nagini
3)The Diary
4)TheLocket
5)The Ring
6)Hufflepuff's Cup, IIRC

RE Character deaths, I don't think it will be Harry AND Voldemort. That's just to obvious. One definetely has to die, that is a given, but I really don't feel that the other will. Maybe Voldemort and Ginny, that could be interesting.

[BelkarsDagger]

If not Harry, then Ron. But thats just my two cp.

[Xerillum]

yeah, i agree with ^, I was thinking ron, but thias is how I think it will play out: VDM casts AK on harry, ron blocks it, and harry AKs VDM and winds up in azkaban.

[charik]

Read the interview: she strongly implies that Harry will die for the reasons I stated in my earlier post, but won't 100% commit to it in advance because she doesn't want hate mail.

[Trog]

yeah, i agree with ^, I was thinking ron, but thias is how I think it will play out: VDM casts AK on harry, ron blocks it, and harry AKs VDM and winds up in azkaban.

::) Okay, I seriously don't think that anyone in the wizarding world would place Harry in Akaban for destorying it's equivalent of Hitler.

My thoughts on two characters that die: Voldemort (duh) and... Well I had thought Hagrid (in some sort of cool giant attack battle/war thingy!) but since I read the linked article I've gotta think that it has to be either Ron or Hermione. And since I really want to see the Hermione Harry hook up.... die Ron, die! Save your family some money!

[BelkarsDagger]

But I always wanted to see it when Ron and Hermione got married... they insult eachother, they mock eachother, they argue, perfect couple :)

[Lord_Oni]

my two cents are:

tat the mirror of erised is desire backwards, and a mirror reverses it, so it is what tyour subconcious desires.

I have some ideas as to the horcruxes-
1- the diary
2-the locket
3-the mirror of erised
4-Voldemort'd father's grave. it seems a likely place
5-harry's scar. it hurts when voldemort kills, so killing may increase VDM's power, causing him to store it in a horcrux i.e. harry's scar.
as for the others, i have no clue.

there may be more than 7 books, you know. maybe more. who knows?





I dont beleive that there will be more than 7 books but i do beleive book 7 will be near 3000 pages.

Anywho

I think an important point that hasent been mentioned yet is something that dubledore said and it went soemthing like" yes yes Voldermort has immortality thanks to all these horcruxes but there is an equal or greater power to be found in a complete soul".

I have no idea what this really means but i can guarantee you we will hear about this or soemthing linked to it in the final book.

If you ask me in my opinion i beleive that it will ahve something to do with Dumbledores resurection. You know someting like well if you have a complete soul then True Ressurection will work, no con loss at all!

Curses now I have to read Half-Blood Prince again

[Holy_Knight]

Hey everyone. I've been thinking a lot about the things we've been talking about here, and come up with some more ideas about some of them. Anyway, here goes (warning, this could get kind of long):

Horcruxes

At first I was going to say that Harry couldn't be a Horcrux. After thinking about it some more, however, I think it's possible that he could be. However,there's a catch--if he is, then Voldemort probably doesn't know about it, and couldn't have done it on purpose. Think about it--the whole reason Voldemort lost his powers in the first place is because he was trying to kill Harry. Since he was afraid Harry would overthrow him, and thus wanted to kill him, he obviously wouldn't have been trying to make Harry into a Horcrux. Now, here's where things get interesting, though. We know that Voldemort made Horcruxes using things that were personally significant to him. Killing the child prophesied to potentially overthrow him would certainly qualify for that, so it's entirely possible that Voldemort was attempting to create the final Horcrux when he killed Harry. If this is what happened, then when the Avada Kedavra rebounded, it might have still created the Horcrux--only as Harry, instead of whatever object Voldemort was trying to make into one when he tried to kill him. There is also evidence for this in the fact that Voldemort accidentally transferred some of his powers to Harry at that moment, which would be explained by Harry having part of his soul in him. There could also be a hint for this theory in how Harry phrases his statement once he finds this out in Book 2: "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" That could be metaphorical, of course, but it is suggestive.

Now, there are some difficulties here. First, it all depends on whether Voldemort had already made 6 Horcruxes by the time he tried to kill Harry. If he had, then he wouldn't have been attempting to make another one. Supposing that Harry did get part of Voldemort's soul in him, however, it's unclear whether it oculd have survived.
At the end of Book 5 Voldemort possesses Harry briefly, and Dumbledore says later that he couldn't keep it up because he couldn't stand to be inside a body so filled with love. If that's true, then it also seems like even if Harry had become a Horcrux, the piece of Voldemort's soul would have been "burned out of him" in the same way.

--One other thing about that: If Harry is a Horcrux, would Voldemort have been able to tell when he briefly possessed him? Could he have sensed the other piece of his soul in there? (Also, I don't see how he did possess him, since he has a new body already, but whatever.)

Finally, here's an interesting thought: Let's say that it does turn out that Harry is the final Horcrux (and who else thinks the next book will probably be called "Harry Potter and the Final Horcrux"?), and that Harry manages to kill Voldemort. It seems like we'll have to get one of two endings. Either:

1) Harry can only defeat Voldemort for good by dying himself. He asks Ron to kill him before it's too late. (assuming that Ron hasn't died himself)

2) Harry is able to purge Voldemort's soul from him, possibly for the same reason that Voldemort couldn't keep possessing him in Book 5 as mentioned above. (Maybe he'll have everyone that he cares about gathered around him, and there'll be so much love that Vodemort's last piece of soul dies inside him... altohugh hopefully in a way that doesn't come across as too cheesy :P ).

About the locket: Assuming we're right that it's the same one in the Black house (now Harry's)--what exactly happened to it? It seems to be that they put it in a pile of stuff that they were planning to get rid of--but did they? Also, can we know for sure that Kreacher never got a hold of it, and/or took it to Bellatrix? Finally, if it is the same, it seems a little odd that no one noticed Slytherin's Mark on it, but perhaps it was obscured somehow.

Harry's Parents
They won't come back to life. Aside from the fact that if they did it would totally cheapen most of what has happened in the previous books, there's an interesting interchange at the end of Book 4. Dumbledore says: "No spell can reawaken the dead", and he is specifically talking about the Priori Incantatem effect which he has just acknowledged was produced by two wands with phoenix feather cores. It's a nice thought, but they're staying dead.

Happy Ending?
So, what kind of happy ending could there be, then? Here's what I think is the best-case scenario:

Everyone Harry really cares about survives (seems dubious, but this is the best case), and he marries Ginny.
The Weasleys have always been a surrogate family to him, and now he's officially a real family member. Ron and Hermione get married as well, and now everyone that Harry loves is one big happy family--which is the one thing that he never had, and always wanted. :)

That being said, here's a couple other possible somewhat happy endings:

2) Harry manages to kill Voldemort, but dies himself in the process (maybe since he was a horcrux). Ron and Hermione get married, and perhaps they have a son who they name "Harry Potter Weasley".

3) Ron dies protecting either Harry or Hermione, but Harry survives and destroys Voldemort. Harry marries Ginny.

3b) Hermione is so overcome with grief that she throws herself into a river, and her body is dashed on the rocks.

3c) Hermione is so overcome with grief that she loses all of her magical powers. She never marries, and becomes a dentist.

3d) Hermione dies, but Harry and Ron survive. Ron is so overcome with grief that he throws himself into a river and his body is dashed on the rocks.

Super-sad ending:

Harry manages to defeat Voldemort, but only after watching Ron, Hermione, Ginny, and maybe Neville, and maybe the other Weasleys snuff it one by one. Having defeated Voldemort, but having lost everyone who made his life worth living... he doesn't kill himself, but he wishes he had died too. (Or maybe he throws himself into a river, and his body is dashed on the rocks :P. )

Ridiculously sad ending that would never happen:

Voldemort wins. The whole world is plunged into eternal darkness and torment.

Who Will Die?

Almost certainly Voldemort will, in order to not get the ridiculously sad ending. Other than that, there seems to be a high chance that Harry will. I've also thought for a long time that Ron was in a lot of danger--best friends of the main character tend to have a high mortality rate. I really hope he survives though, so he and Hermione can get married. I really don't see Hermione dying for some reason, although possibly Ginny might. Neville seems like a fair candidate, although I see him surviving instead. Hagrid I'm not sure on; he could definitely go either way. One character I'm not sure about is Draco--what do you guys think? I kind of see him dying semi-accidentally; i.e. he's fighting Harry or someone who isn't actually trying to kill him, but he gets knocked into some lethal object, etc.

Now here's some people you might not have considered--The Dursleys. Dumbledore mentioned that Harry's magical protection at his Aunt's house would last until he came of age. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up being killed once Harry turns 17. Here are the two most likely ways, I think:

1) Harry is still there, and Death Eaters come to attack him. He survives, but some or all of the Durselys are killed in the struggle.

2) Harry is not there anyway. However, Voldemort knows that the Dursleys are the reason he couldn't reach Harry in England for all those years, and he (or his followers) kills them out of vengeance. --I like this one the best.

More on Neville and Peter
We were tlaking before about how there's some parallels between Neville and Peter Pettigrew, and like I said before, I think it's an interesting analogy to think of them both as having started with potential and not much else, but Peter never lived up to his and became evil instead, while Neville has really become a lot braver and more competent as a wizard. I've also been noticing some other similarities. Just as Peter was described as having idolized James and Sirius and tagging along with them more than being an equal friend, that's fairly true of Neville as well. You can even see this in book 1--Neville gets in trouble because he ran off to warn Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and he comes into play later on in being brave enough to stand up to them in the common room, and winning the house championship. Besides all that, he's become increasingly a part of Harry, Ron, and Hermione's inner circle, and he's been one of the few to really stick by them, in the D.A., and fighting the Death Eaters, and so forth. I wouldn't be surprised if he's fairly important in the last book. Also, you can see parallels between all four of them and the previous generation: Harry-James, Ron-Sirius, Hermione-Lupin (the most straight-laced and book smart), and Neville-Peter. The obvious differences of course being that Lupin was a boy and he and Sirius weren't in love with each other, and that Neville became a better person while Peter became worse.

Also, assuming they both survive, I'd be surprised if Neville and Luna didn't end up together.

Some Other Thoughts
There may be some jealous tension at Bill's wedding. We know Fleur's sister will be there, and it sounds like she has a crush on Harry. So Ginny may get mad, especially if Fleur's sister is as pretty as Fleur is (do they have veela heritage? Or am I misremembering that?)

As much as he'll try to keep them from doing so, Ginny and probably Neville (maybe Luna too, who knows) will come with Harry to try to find the Horcruxes and defeat Voldemort (Ron and Hermione are a given). I also expect that Dobby will show up to help Harry in some capacity.

On that note, it's hard to imagine that other members of the Order of the Phoenix wouldn't be involved in this somehow--assuming that Harry tells them. Speaking of the Order, who is in charge of it now? McGonagall? (And who exactly is the secret keeper for its location? Hopefully it wasn't Dumbledore, or they'd better get another one fast...)

How did Sirius pay for Harry's Firebolt? He says that he sued Harry's name but told them to take the money from his own account--but how would the goblins let that happen? I think if I went into my bank and asked them to take out money for me out of someone else's account, they wouldn't do it. Maybe I'm missing something here...

I hope we see more of Tonks, I like her.

I also like... Pigwidgeon! Who else thinks Pigwidgeon is great! He makes me smile or laugh every time he's in the story. :D

I had a dream last night that I was Harry Potter. Goyle (strangely enough) tricked me into wearing some cursed cloak that trapped me inside Voldemort's mind. I had to run away before he could kill me, and I eventually escaped by running to the edge of his memory. Once I reached a part of the terrain that Voldemort's memory had never been to, I warped back to the real world.

Anyway, I might have had some more theories and such, but if so, I've forgotten them for now. What do you guys think about all that?

--HK :)

[charik]

This is in response to HK's dissertation, but that's too long to quote and too complex to edit meaningfully.

I'd have to guess that horcrux-Harry continues because a) that part of a soul which infuses a horcrux is a fragment, not an equal part, thereby having no 'choice' in the matter; and b) it has been part of Harry's being for as far back as he can remember, and so he has integrated it into himself.

As to Draco, I've felt since about Book 2 that in the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, Draco will realize what's at stake and side with Harry.

As for your final question, you're weird. Dreaming you're Harry trapped inside Voldemort's memory?

[Trog]

Harry's Parents
They won't come back to life. Aside from the fact that if they did it would totally cheapen most of what has happened in the previous books, there's an interesting interchange at the end of Book 4. Dumbledore says: "No spell can reawaken the dead", and he is specifically talking about the Priori Incantatem effect which he has just acknowledged was produced by two wands with phoenix feather cores. It's a nice thought, but they're staying dead.


Unless Harry is a horcrux for his parents....oooooo. That old magic Mom used to sheild him from the spell was never really explained in full. (Pretty unlikely, but nevertheless, always a possibility in Rowlings vague world of magic :P ).

And again. Voldemort!! Hellloooooo! I know Dumbledore said that, but it directly contradicts Voldemort's return. Dumbledore seems to be the only person who keeps saying that "can't bring back the dead" line and is probably doing it just to hide the fact that it can be done from Harry.

Why? He knows that it is Harry's deepest desire to have his parents from the Mirror or Erised and he also knows that Harry could bring them back if he worked with Voldemort (together... we can bring them back) but to protect Harry he keeps this from him. Like he has kept things from him before when he was trying to help Harry.

Also, and I know everyone seems big on this in this thread but, does a person who is a horcrux have to die to destroy the thing? Everyone here seems to look at Harry's scar and go: "Horcrux!" and the then: *Whongo!* as they hit Harry with a shovel to meet the body count. Whassup with that?

[Holy_Knight]

I'd have to guess that horcrux-Harry continues because a) that part of a soul which infuses a horcrux is a fragment, not an equal part, thereby having no 'choice' in the matter; and b) it has been part of Harry's being for as far back as he can remember, and so he has integrated it into himself.
That's possible. I was thinking of it more along the lines of love being like a poison to voldemort though, so that it would just sort of corrode his soul fragment away. But I do agree that Harry may yet be the Horcrux.



As for your final question, you're weird. Dreaming you're Harry trapped inside Voldemort's memory?
And don't I know it! Almost all of my dreams are weird, so that's pretty typical fare for me. A lot of them involve fighting, too...


]
And again. Voldemort!! Hellloooooo! I know Dumbledore said that, but it directly contradicts Voldemort's return. Dumbledore seems to be the only person who keeps saying that "can't bring back the dead" line and is probably doing it just to hide the fact that it can be done from Harry.
It doesn't contradict it, because Voldemort never died. He even says "I have never died" in Book 4.

Here are some more things I've been pondering:

Voldemort and Horcruxes
How do the Horcruxes work, exactly? What I mean by that is--what exactly happens to you and to it when one activates? Does it use up the Horcrux? Is your consciousness transported to the horcrux's location? Does whatever is left of you stay where your body died? I got to thinking about this in re-reading about Voldemort's attack on Harry. Where was he, once his Horcruxes were needed?

Here's another question related to that: How did Voldemort get his wand back? He obviously couldn't have taken it with him once he no longer had a body, but when he gets a new body, he has the same one, so he reacquired it somehow. Surely if any of the Order had found it, they would have destroyed it. And since they had reason to think Voldemort could come back someday, they would surely search for it so they could destroy it. So, either they just couldn't find it, which seems pretty unlikely, or somebody took it in between Voldemort losing his body and Hagrid and Sirius reaching the house. But who could have taken it? And how would they have even known there was something to take, unless they knew both where Voldemort was going and that he failed?

The best theory I can come up with so far is that Voldemort had enough presence of mind to command a snake to retrieve his wand from the ruins of the Potters' house. The snake arrived after Hagrid and Sirius had already left, but before anyone else showed up. Hagrid (and Dumbledore) was too concerned with getting Harry to safety to search for anything else, and Sirius was too concerned with killing Peter to search as well. By the time anyone could have come to search the rubble, Voldemort's wand was gone. The snake hid it someplace from where Voldemort eventually retrieved it.

Does anyone have any other ideas on this?

Here's something interesting about Voldemort's name. We know that lots of the characters have names that relate to or describe them in some way--like Sirius, Lupin, Sprout, Malfoy, etc. In French, "Voldemort" would mean "flight of death", which I always figured was a plausible bad guy kind of name, although sort of unexciting. However, recently it occurred to me that "de" could be translated as "from" instead of "of", which would make his name mean "flight from death". Now that is a lot more interesting, because we know that Voldemort's prime motivation is to never die. He's been fleeing from death for his whole life--which suggests that his name is not just a kind of generic bad guy title, but actually an important description of who he is.

More on the Dursleys dying
In my last post I suggested that the Dursleys would be killed by Voldemort or his followers in book 7. I still think that's likely, but I also had an interesting thought about it--what if Vernon and Petunia died, but Dudley survived? Imagine this: Death Eaters show up at Number Four, Privet Drive--and while Harry fights them off, Uncle Vernon is killed, and Aunt Petunia throws herself in front of Dudley and takes the Avada Kedavra that was aimed at him. The Dursleys' lives end in an ironic reenactment of the very event that brought Harry to their doorstep in the first place. I really like that idea.

One final thing for now--I re-read Book 4, and there won't be any jealous tension between Ginny and Gabrielle after all. I had thought Gabrielle was fairly close to their age, but she'll only be 11 when Book 7 starts.

[Gary_Howard]

How do you always manage to post something totally relevant to what I'm currently thinking or fishing the internet for?

*closes mugglenet tab and sits down to read long but surely fulfilling post*

[OffSide7]

So romance seems to be coming up a lot in most discussions of predictions for the last book.

I, personally, don't like any of the romance in the books so far. It's really rare to find a series with little to no romance, because it's a really easy crowd pleaser. One of the many ways JK Rowling has really impressed me is her ability to keep an audience's attention without tons of sappy, cliche romance.

I sort of winced at the Ron and Hermione Yule Ball fight, but got over it until book 6, which seemed full of rather gratuitous romance.

How many people do you know actually married their high school sweethearts? It's a pretty small percentage. I don't really want to see Hermione and Ron or any other 17 year old couple get married. I don't want to see them get engaged. Maybe, maybe it'd be ok if there was a "flash forward five years" sort of thing.

I can see Ron dying, because he's the hero's best friend. I can see Harry dying because he's the last horcrux and Voldemort won't be truly dead until he is, so he commits suicide. I can see Neville dying as Neville's moment of glory, some sort of true turn around from the bumbling fool into the true hero... it'd make his gramma proud, no?

Actually, the same goes for Ron. Harry is the hero who fights the dark arts. Hermione is brilliant and powerful. What is Ron? Loyal? Good at chess? How many times can an author force chess into a major plot point to give Ron a moment of glory? But imagine if he died so that Harry can go on to save the world. That would be so dramatic and heroic. Oy.

Lots of non-main characters are going to snuff it, I think.

Speaking of Harry Potter dreams, I dreamed I was in that setting, on some grassy hills, when a huge, frightening black dog went bounding by. I remembered Sirius was dead, so it had to be the grim. When I looked around, people's faces were blacked out, and I realized anyone with a blacked out face would die. Prof. Trelawney was screaming, she knew what it meant. Then an earthquake came, killed lots of people, and the massive final battle between the good guys and the Death Eaters started. People were getting killed left and right, and the bad guys were winning. I was terrified!

[geek_2049]

Iirc the prophecy says that one will live, one will die. I predict Voldie dies and Harrry lives. I expect Lupin to die by Wormtongue's hand, remember it's silver now. Though Wormtongue may save Harry from the other werewolf, in which case Lupin may live.

It is possible that JKR meant two main characters who are good guys might die.

Wormtongue vs Longbottom: Clash of the C-

[theKOT]

Actually, the prophesy was that "Neither can live while the other survives." Also, mugglenet says the wormtail's silver hand kills lupin thing has been debunked by the author. I don't know what there source is, but they are pretty reliable. Here's the link http://www.mugglenet.com/books/futurebooks/book7/rumors.shtml

[tis_tom]

How I see it there is no way Snape could possibly have been evil, and I agree largely with HolyKnight on this one, however I also think that Dumbledore's death at the hands of Snape will give Harry Potter the motivation needed to truly reach his full potential to destroy Voldemort once and for all.

I think that Dumbledore and Snape have effectively discussed that neither of them could take Voldemort- however, maybe with the combined power of an enraged Harry and an insider such as Snape they may be able to overcome Voldemort (especially after Dumbledore has shown Harry about the horcruxs and how they will defeat Voldemort).

Finally, I think Harry is the last horcrux. They questioned in the 6th book about if a horcrux could be put into a human, and Dumbledore said that they maybe could. I mean think about it, what would Voldemort want more as a horcrux than the guy who had a prophesy saying he would kill him? I'm not sure if Dumbledore and Snape know this- but they must have a suspicion by now Harry has a very large role to play if they wish to defeat Voldemort.

[Kesnit]

Well, I belive Dumbledore didn't die, because it said a trickle of blood came of his mouth. The killing curse leaves no blood, Potter!


*starts randomly rambling about different ideas for Harry Potter*

Dumbledore has a pet phoenix. A phoenix dies, but comes back from its own ashes.

I've always wondered if Dumbledore needed to die in order to come back more powerful. Or if he needed to die because he was too old, but when he is reborn, he'll be younger (but just as powerful).

edit: I just saw the dumbledoreisnotdead web site. Guess I'm not the only one who thought of the phoenix.

[Starla]

I think Snape isn't evil and this was a plan of dumbledore's to keep a man inside because stopping Voldimort was the most important thing.

Now as to why J. K. would do this it goes to my idea that Snape will Kill voldimort. Why? Because in her books good guys don't kill. Its been six books with lots of fighitng and the closest thing to a good guy with a body count is Snape, with one. So either the seventh book will break the trend with an unrealistic bring out the death, or Harry will still not be able to kill the enemy. Enter Snape who kills Voldemort, ending the evil while still allowing Harry to remain the pure untainted hero.

What about Harry and Professor Quirell? Didn't he technically kill Quirell? He also killed the Tom Riddle Diary which we now understand held a piece of Voldemort's soul. He wanted to kill Sirius when he thought Sirius was the cause of his parents death. If Harry is the "good guy" then that argument doesn't hold water. Plus Order of the Phoenix was all for stopping death eaters which involved "kill or be killed" kind of thinking.


Now for my essay:
In Harry Potter's universe there is the main antagonist, Lord Voldemort and the main protagonist, Harry Potter. There is a spectrum between them like good and evil and everyone is somewhere on the spectrum, some closer to Harry's side and some closer to Voldemort's side. Voldemort's ambition is to live forever, some other ambitions we have learned about were ruling the world and killing non-wizards and wizards that were not sympathetic to his cause. All of these have stemmed from Voldemort's desire to be special and different.

Harry Potter is his opposite in motivation and turned equal by Voldemorts choosing of him to be his (Voldemort's mind) main antgonist. Harry has desired to be "normal" to "fit in" but he can't because he has be "marked" literally and figuratively by Lord Voldemort. There have be many reflections in books when Harry has watched Ron and wished to be him. To have a family, to be looked at and not have a scar to be noticed, to be looked upon as a normal wizard and not as the "boy who lived." In the first book he tried very hard to convince Hagrid that he was not special that he didn't deserve fame or praise, a perfect antithesis of Voldemort's feelings.

However he has grown up like Voldemort and sympathized with his circumstances, being an orphan, being opressed by his guardians, wanting to live at Hogwarts over the summer, being half blood. And yet in their similarities they are still opposites. Harry had relatives for guardians and Tom lived in an orphanage. Harry was oppressed by his relatives and Tom rebelled and managed to be the oppressor at the orphanage. Harry's parents both were competent magic users and his mother was a muggle born witch and his father was wizard. Tom's father was a muggle and did not use magic at all, his mother was a witch and almost a squib, barely competent in her magic usage. All these prove how Lord Voldemort and Harry Potter make the opposing ends of the spectrum, now where the other characters fit in the spectrum lie with how they sympathize with Lord Voldemort or with Harry.

Obviously Albus Dumbledore has always opposed Lord Voldemort and was ready when he marked Harry to stand beside him. He chooses not to use dark arts, as Professor McGonagal points out. Dumbledore has never expressed interest in power such as being Minister of Magic. He believes everyone deserves a chance to live.

Snape however has been a loose cannon and been boucing between the sides till JK Rowling has got our heads spinning, unable to tell which side of the spectrum he will truly belong to. To analyze Snape I would first like to point out another loose cannon, Bartemius Crouch. On the spectrum he would appear to oppose Lord Voldemort and his death eaters since he so avidly caught and imprisoned as many of Voldemort's followers as possible but was he really sympathetic to Harry's side? Was Crouch more like the oppressed, humble, family-hungry child instead of the oppressing, prideful, power-hungry wizard? To me Crouch was more obsessed with power than with family. He was willing to use dark arts to acheive his goals like Voldemort did. His own son chose to follow Voldemort and Barty ended up losing face with the wizarding community. In the end family did become more important than power but he didn't change completely. I think Barty was more sympathetic to the Voldemort side of the spectrum but he wouldn't have admitted it. In the end he died as a result of his choices.

Of course using this logic would suggest that Slugg was also a "Voldemort" supporter and in a sense he was, but thanks to Dumbledore he also became a Harry Potter supporter. Since his main ambition is to simply help those who stand out in their abilities to acheive their ambitions it makes his position foggier. However he doesn't desire power, nor does he use the dark arts to achieve it. To him his students are almost like family. I would think him to be more sympathetic to the Harry Potter side of the spectrum.

Now back to Snape. Snape has tried very hard to look unsympathetic towards Harry and yet he still seems to have convinced Dumbledore that he was unsympathetic to Voldemort's side as well. He created the name Half-blood prince for himself which suggests a desire to stand out. He invented spells that do incredible damage, which would probably be considered dark arts also. However in Harry has had glimpses of Snapes' past. "In the first, a boy is crying in a corner while a hook-nosed man shouts at a cowering woman. In the second, a teenager is sitting alone in a dark bedroom shooting down flies, and in the third a girl is laughing while a scrawny boy tries to get on a bucking broomstick." (help from Wikipedia) These memories show oppression and humility that is more on the Harry Potter side of the spectrum than the Voldemort side. But it does not decisively conclude that Snape is on one side or the other. Like Peter Pettigrew, Snape may feel that he is one that needs protection and he runs between each side trying to figure out which one will protect him better.

I can't conclude this argument because I am out of time for discussing it but my last thought is that maybe Snape never convinced Dumbledore he deserved trust, maybe he convinced Dumbledore that he could be a proper mini-antagonist towards Harry to help strengthen him to meet Voldemort. Because knowing Dumbledore that sounds just twisted enough to accept as a reason to allow one of Voldemorts "supposed minions" to infiltrate the school- for valuable learning possiblities.

[Steward]

What about Harry and Professor Quirell? Didn't he technically kill Quirell? He also killed the Tom Riddle Diary which we now understand held a piece of Voldemort's soul.

Only if you go by the movie. In the book, Harry just burns Quirrel's skin a bit with his hand until they both go unconscious. Then Voldemort leaves him to die. Also, the diary wasn't really a living thing so many people don't count it as another one of Harry the Serial Killer's victims.

[Warmage_@_Large]

*attempts to recover the shards of his shattered mind*

WOW All of you have made very good arguments but here are the ones that have really stuck with me:

1) Dumbledore dying as a changing of the guard-

Everyone kept looking to him for answers, for his "protege" to step up, the one who was prophesised to be the answer to Voldemort, Dumbledore needed to be out of the way.

2) Snape as the Overbearing Techer -

To me that just blew my mind and it made a lot of sense, Harry was picked on and alienated during his upbrining, yet he managed to overcome it and still maintain that "innocent/noble/lookonthebrightside" outlook on life, maybe having Snape do the exact same thing as a teacher was the best thing for him.

3) Why did Snape kill Dumbledore? -

The Unbreakable Vow, pure and simple. As a true Death Eater he would've jumped at the chance to be rid of his leader's No.1 threat to power. As a "good guy" on the inside, hesitation or even refusal would have aroused suspicion or even death.

4) Snape's Behaviour -

I'm thinking, after listening to both sides of the argument (I'm really gonna need to re-read the entire series and review my opinions anyway) that Snape just seems to be one of those people who fit into that big grey area in life. By that I mean that nothing is clear cut black (bad) or white (good) when it comes to moral debate and the actions deemed to be the "right" choices. As has been made evidently clear in the series, Snape has a lot of emotional baggage, and just like Harry they both have to work through it and form some sort of resolution by the end of book 7.

5) Harry as a Horcrux -

For me this just doesn't vibe, I mean as mentioned earlier, the prophecy stated that while the other is alive neither can live. My interpretation of this is that while the killer of Harry's parents is still at large Harry cannot fully come to terms with their passing, nor get close to anyone else for fear of them dying, so he sets out for vengence yes, but also for the good of the world. While Harry survives he remains as the one blemish on the Dark Lord's otherwise spotless rain of terror, once he is out of the way at the death of his hands, Voldemort can truly say that no-one can or will defy him as his rival in power has been defeated as stated in the half of the prophecy that he is aware of.

6) Harry's Parent's Coming back from the Dead -

I'm sorry but this one really doesn't fly for me. While the people who have suggested this have made some very, VERY good points about the possibility. The way Rowling has approached resurrection - or the means to delay, prevent or otherwise come back from the dead has lead me to the conclusion that is the blackest art there is [think human alchemy in Full Metal Alchemist for those of you who have seen it] and even still it is by no means a perfect thing. Think drinkin Unicorn's blood in the first book, you gain immortality yes, but then you become a nightmarish creature. And the whole Horcrux thing generally not good. I mean, fragmenting your SOUL, the very essence of your being in this life [and the next depending on your beliefs] has got to be the a really bad thing right?

As for who dies Voldemort has to go or I won't be a happy camper, that and I really cant stand being dragged on an emotional rollercoaster to be left high and dry at the end. And the second character will be Snape with a good ol' fashioned deathbed recant/justification of his actions.

And I know I may be laughed at for this but I can't help feeling that Neville's parents may do something/get better in the final book.

Or call me optimistic ;)

[Steward]

The way Rowling has approached resurrection - or the means to delay, prevent or otherwise come back from the dead has lead me to the conclusion that is the blackest art there is

In fact, resurrection isn't even possible unless the dead person somehow planned ahead to come back from the dead. Unicorn blood's no good if you're dead and a corpse probably can't make Horcruxes.



To me that just blew my mind and it made a lot of sense, Harry was picked on and alienated during his upbrining, yet he managed to overcome it and still maintain that "innocent/noble/lookonthebrightside" outlook on life, maybe having Snape do the exact same thing as a teacher was the best thing for him.

I don't know. It might have kept him noble and optimistic but it made it really hard for Harry to learn anything from him. I bet that he learned more in Book 6 from Snape's old book than he did in the first five years with the actual hook-nosed freak hovering over him. And remember learning Occlumency? Remember how well that went?

Not saying that Snape's "being mean" plan was a bad idea, but making Snape Harry's only means of learning Occlumency was a horrible idea and I wonder how Dumbledore could sleep at night after he authorized that.

[Holy_Knight]

How do you always manage to post something totally relevant to what I'm currently thinking or fishing the internet for?

*closes mugglenet tab and sits down to read long but surely fulfilling post*
I don't know, but I'm glad to be of service. And thank you for the compliment. :)



How many people do you know actually married their high school sweethearts? It's a pretty small percentage. I don't really want to see Hermione and Ron or any other 17 year old couple get married. I don't want to see them get engaged. Maybe, maybe it'd be ok if there was a "flash forward five years" sort of thing.
Normally I would agree with this sort of thing. However, when you look at all that the characters have gone through, they've really had much more to deal with than most people their age, and as a result they've had to grow up very quickly. So, it wouldn't strike me as that implausible for them to marry their highschool sweethearts.

As for not liking the romance, I don't really see it. I mean, I've thought Ron and Hermione were clearly made for each other for a long time. :) (I hope they both survive...)



I can see Ron dying, because he's the hero's best friend. I can see Harry dying because he's the last horcrux and Voldemort won't be truly dead until he is, so he commits suicide. I can see Neville dying as Neville's moment of glory, some sort of true turn around from the bumbling fool into the true hero... it'd make his gramma proud, no?
Here's a thought I had about Neville--maybe he will be the one to kill Bellatrix Lestrange. I can see a situation like this:

In a battle between the Order and the Death Eaters, Harry and Bellatrix are fighting. Bellatrix wins, and raises her wand for the kill. Suddenly we hear a loud cry of "Avada Kedavra!--only Harry doesn't die as he expects to--instead he sees Bellatrix's eyes wide with shock, and as she crumples to the ground, we see Neville, slumped against a wall, face strained and panting, his wand pointing where Bellatrix had just been standing. I think this may be Neville's big moment of glory--avenging his parents and saving Harry's life by killing the one person he hates enough to perform a fully-powered killing curse.



Actually, the same goes for Ron. Harry is the hero who fights the dark arts. Hermione is brilliant and powerful. What is Ron? Loyal? Good at chess? How many times can an author force chess into a major plot point to give Ron a moment of glory? But imagine if he died so that Harry can go on to save the world. That would be so dramatic and heroic. Oy.
Well, Ron is brave, loyal, caring, and fiercely protective of the people he loves--and that counts for quite a lot in my book. As for the chess thing, hasn't there only been the one time when it actually mattered to the plot? What other times are you referring to?



Speaking of Harry Potter dreams, I dreamed I was in that setting, on some grassy hills, when a huge, frightening black dog went bounding by. I remembered Sirius was dead, so it had to be the grim. When I looked around, people's faces were blacked out, and I realized anyone with a blacked out face would die. Prof. Trelawney was screaming, she knew what it meant. Then an earthquake came, killed lots of people, and the massive final battle between the good guys and the Death Eaters started. People were getting killed left and right, and the bad guys were winning. I was terrified!
Hey, that's pretty cool! And that makes me feel good, not because it shows that I'm not that crazy after all, but because it shows that you're just as crazy as I am. ;)


I can't conclude this argument because I am out of time for discussing it but my last thought is that maybe Snape never convinced Dumbledore he deserved trust, maybe he convinced Dumbledore that he could be a proper mini-antagonist towards Harry to help strengthen him to meet Voldemort. Because knowing Dumbledore that sounds just twisted enough to accept as a reason to allow one of Voldemorts "supposed minions" to infiltrate the school- for valuable learning possiblities.
First, nice essay. Second, I don't think we can conclude that Snape didn't convince Dumbledore he deserved trust. In Book 6 he says: "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely." Now, one thing that's interesting about that is that we still don't know exactly why he trusts Snape. Harry thinks it's because of Snape's expressed remorse over the death of Harry's parents, but at this moment, he has already said that to Harry, and Rowling hints that Dumbledore was considering whether or not to tell Harry the ultimate reason why he trusts Snape. I imagine we'll find out for sure in Book 7; in the meantime, we can speculate. Could Snape have made a previous Unbreakable Vow to work against Voldemort? Is there something he did in the first war that he couldn't possibly have done if he still supported the Death Eaters? If it's either of those, what could the vow or action have been?

Here's a few more thoughts I had:

Muggle Power!

What if Harry finally beats Voldemort by making use of his Muggle knowledge? I first thought of this by kind of humorously imagining them finding the Death Eaters' hideout and dropping a nuclear bomb on it. Then I rememberd that Harry's wand won't work properly against Voldemort's, and imagined him just packing a handgun and blowing away all the Death Eaters. (We'd call him "Dirty Harry" after that.) More seriously though, it would be somewhat fitting if at least some Muggle technology came into play in the fight against Voldemort, since he and his supporters always viewed Muggles as worthless. It wold be ironically fitting if he were undone by that very "worthlessness". Still, it would be pretty unsatisfying if it played too big of a role, and I think Harry will have to mostly use magic in defeating them.

To continue the thing about the wands, however, I wonder whether Harry might not try to use another wand in fighting Voldemort. In particular... do we know what happened to Dumbledore's wand once he died? What if Harry managed to get it, and took it with him to carry out his vengeance? That certainly seems like the kind of thing he'd be inclined to do. In any case, he'll have to do something to get around the wand problem.

More on the Locket

Assuming we're right that Regulus was the one who took it, we're left with more questions. I mentioned before that Kreacher might have hidden it or even smuggled it out of the house to Bellatrix. One other possibility that I hadn't remembered was that Mundungus could have taken it--remember he stole some things from Sirius' house in Book 6? If so, then he might have sold the horcrux to someone else, and who knows who they might have passed it onto? Finally, R.A.B.'s note said he was going to try to destroy the Horcrux himself. Did he succeed? Is it possible that part of Voldemort's soul is gone already?

The Final Horcrux
Let's say that Voldemort was indeed attempting to create his last Horcrux when he tried to kill Harry. If this is true, then there are a couple of intriguing possibilities:

1) The object that he had intended to make a Horcrux could still have been left in the wreckage of Harry's parents' house. Whether it really did become one, or whether Harry did instead, or neither of them, it's possible that the object is still there. We also know that Harry plans to visit Godric's Hollow before setting out on his quest, so it's at least possible that he could stumble across one of the intended Horcruxes while he's there.

2) There is a spell that you have to cast to make a Horcrux. We don't know any more details about that, but if you have to cast it right before you do the killing, it's possible that Harry might actually have a memory of Voldemort casting it. If he can find a way to access that memory, he might be able to discover what object Voldemort was trying to use, or discover some other useful detail. We know also that Harry has been able to recall more and more of that moment when he's been affected by dementors. could he possibly try to allow a dementor to affect him long enough to get a clear memory of that event, before an ally drives it away? And speaking of dementors:

More On Dementors
Dementors can suck out a person's soul, right? So, what would happen if a dementor kissed Voldemort? If it sucked his soul from his body, that isn't the same as dying--so what would happen to the Horcruxes? More intriguingly, could a dementor suck the piece of a soul from a Horcrux? Could that be a way of destroying them?

Is it possible to kill a dementor entirely, or just drive it away? From the sounds of it you can't kill them, but surely they aren't completely invincible...

Is a dementor still Harry's worst fear? I think there's reason to think it wouldn't be, since he knows how to fight them off now. But if that's no longer his biggest fear, what would a boggart become for him?

Amortentia
This is just something that I was wondering: What does Amortentia smell like to Hermione and Ron? We know that it smells to each person like the things that most attract them. Harry smells treacle tart (his favorite food) broomstick handle (since he loves flying and Quidditch) and a flowery scent that we later find out belongs to Ginny (who he has fallen for). We only find out two things that Hermione smells, but there is at least one more, because she blushes and doesn't reveal it. It smells to her like freshly mown grass, fresh parchment (which makes sense) and... something, which undoubtedly refers to Ron in some way (and she knows it does, because she gets embarrassed about it). But what exactly would that smell be? Ron doesn't strike me as the type to wear cologne, so it probably isn't that. Could it just be his natural scent? Maybe, but those aren't usually noticeable. In the times that they are noticeable is when people have been exercising, like playing Quidditch--but Hermione doesn't love Ron because he plays Quidditch, she loves him for who he is. So, what smell would she most associate with him? I'm going to guess that the third thing Hermione smelled in the Amortentia potion was however Ron's room smells at the Burrow. Rooms can have a distinctive scent, and without being unpleasant--and that would represent both her attraction to Ron, as well as a figurative desire to actually be a Weasley (through marriage) herself, making the Burrow the home she wishes to have.

As for Ron, we don't find out what the potion smells like to him, but I'm going to guess. First, he cares very much about his family, so I think it probably smelled like his mother's cooking or the kitchen in general, which is representative of family togetherness. Second, it probably smelled like a chess set in some way, and possibly also like Quidditch in some way. However, his interest in Quidditch is somewhat different than Harry's, and I'll guess to him it smelled like a fresh Quidditch unform to him. This is because Ron, having grown up with so many talented older brothers and being somewhat insecure, would see the uniform as symbolic of having earned the right to play on the team itself. Finally, there would obviously be a smell that represented Hermione--but what would it be? I think it would be two things. First, I think it would smell like Hermione's hair. There's two reasons for this. Her hair is long and bushy, so there's a fair amount of it, so it's likely that the smell of her shampoo would linger on it. More importantly, there's some reason to think that either it would look better, or she thinks it would look better, if it weren't so bushy, but it's too much trouble to do it up except on special occasions (like the Yule Ball). But Ron doesn't care about that, and the Hermioine he fell for is the normal everyday one, not the dolled up version. So her bushy hair is representative in that way of his genune feelings for her. Second, I think it wold smell like books. Not because he likes them so much, obviously, but because she does. He associates books and intelligence with Hermione, and we know that he truly admires how smart and talented she is. So I think the love potion would smell like them to him, because he associates them with her! (It just occurred to me that that's pretty sweet, actually. Okay, say it with me now: "Awwwwwwww!" :D )

And Speaking of Amortentia, Just For Fun:
If you encountered some love potion, what do you think it would smell like to you?

[Gary_Howard]

And Speaking of Amortentia, Just For Fun:
If you encountered some love potion, what do you think it would smell like to you?

Earl Grey and old books.. you know, the book smell you get in a big library.

And really fresh Earl Grey. *nods vigorously*

Edit: And, obviously, for plot reasons, it smells like some third thing I can't currently place but which will later be revealed as belonging to that one special person I haven't met yet but who the reader already knows is perfect for me and is wondering why I'm such an IDIOT that I haven't realised it yet. Has to be in sets of three.

[Trog]

And Speaking of Amortentia, Just For Fun:
If you encountered some love potion, what do you think it would smell like to you?
Obsession. Don't ask why.

[Holy_Knight]

Earl Grey and old books.. you know, the book smell you get in a big library.

And really fresh Earl Grey. *nods vigorously*
You kind of remind me of someone I went to college with, May. She also really liked tea and novels, and coincidentally, she had been telling me how great Harry Potter was for a while before I ever read the books.



Edit: And, obviously, for plot reasons, it smells like some third thing I can't currently place but which will later be revealed as belonging to that one special person I haven't met yet but who the reader already knows is perfect for me and is wondering why I'm such an IDIOT that I haven't realised it yet. Has to be in sets of three.
LOL, that sounds right. I need to get myself some readers, so they can tell me my third thing.

To be honest, I'm not totally sure what any of my Amortentia smells would be, though. Possibly water (like fresh rain or a running brook) and maybe cilantro. Maybe some kind of flowers.

Here's something I kept meaning to say earlier but never remembered it while I was posting:

Question: Can you Apparate or Disapparate inside of Hogwarts?

Of course not, right? Like anyone who's read Hogwarts: A History can tell you, it's impossible to apparate on school grounds. But it actually isn't! Dobby has done it himself, as has Kreacher and presumably any of the other house elves there! So, this means that either:

a) House Elves aren't affected by anti-apparition enchantments

b) Specific House Elves aren't affected by anti-apparition enchantments on their homes/workplaces

c) House Elves can be affected by anti-apparition enchantments, but that's a different type of enchantment from the one that blocks humans.

I think (b) is the most likely, but either way, this can turn out to be very useful in the fight against Voldemort. If his lair, or some other Death Eater stronghold isn't protected against House Elf apparition (perhaps because they wouldn't think it important enough to worry about), then Dobby might be able to sneak in some place to rescue someone, retrieve an object, or something similar. I can't imagine that Dobby won't come to help Harry whether Harry wants him to or not, so this may turn out to be very important.

[OffSide7]

Normally I would agree with this sort of thing. However, when you look at all that the characters have gone through, they've really had much more to deal with than most people their age, and as a result they've had to grow up very quickly. So, it wouldn't strike me as that implausible for them to marry their highschool sweethearts.
I don't think it's implausible to expect JK to stick it in a book. I just think her books were so awesome without romance, and she's normally so good at avoiding gratuitous elements, that I would just adore for her to keep the romance to a minimum. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an engagement or two, but it really doesn't seem that special if every high school crush results in marriage right out of high school.

I also don't really buy the theory that going through a lot would make one mature. After all, Ron and Hermione have been through plenty, and yet he still acted supremely immaturely with Lavender, and Hermione's canary attack tells me her maturity doesn't extend to romance.

Going through the sort of danger they've been through might give them a more mature attitude towards death, or sacrifice, or good and evil, but why should that extend to romance? I'm not saying JK might suggest that it would, I'm not saying that JK won't have them suddenly act maturely in a romantic way together... I'm just saying I personally won't find it too plausible or terribly pleasing as a reader.


As for not liking the romance, I don't really see it. I mean, I've thought Ron and Hermione were clearly made for each other for a long time. :) (I hope they both survive...)
People say this a lot and honestly, I haven't read one decent argument for it, besides the fact that they are good friends and make moon eyes at eachother, metaphorically speaking. What about Ron should attract Hermione? Besides the generic qualities that could attract anyone, like smarts and caring? Does she appreciate his sense of humor? No. He usually goes for looks over brains or personality. Does her fondness for the rules appeal to him? No. There's nothing specific about them that makes them perfect for eachother that I've ever seen. He appreciates her smarts... more than enough characters do.

I do really like the idea of Neville killing Bellatrix. Here's hoping.


Well, Ron is brave, loyal, caring, and fiercely protective of the people he loves--and that counts for quite a lot in my book.
It counts for plenty it almost everyone's book, but almost all of the good guys posess those qualities. And Ron's not really that brave.
No, as far as I can see, it's only happened once. But that's what I'm saying. She threw it in there half-hazardly once already... it wouldn't be plausible to throw in Ron's only special talent again.

I can't remember if I said it before, but just in case: my guess is Dumbledore's trust in Snape started when Snape warned the Potters to go into hiding. Maybe he did it because he felt indebted to James for saving him from Remus?

I like the idea that, if Harry is an unintended Horcrux, the intended one was still in the ruin of Godric's Hollow. ...Would wizards just leave a wreckage? Has it been cleaned up? Maybe what was salvagable is somehow being kept for Harry to inherit when he comes of age or something?

Dementer theories are very interesting...

As for Amortentia... I've wondered about what it would smell like to me... One of these days I'm going to make a meme or something asking for HP profiles... what would your wand be made of? What would your patronus be? What animal would you turn into if you were an animagus? What would amortentia smell like to you? And, of course, what house would you be in? Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Messy]

Oh my. I think by now after all the discussions in the world about Harry Potter, there's got to be 10000000 times as many pages than Rowling has actually thought of / written! :o

[Starla]

First, nice essay. Second, I don't think we can conclude that Snape didn't convince Dumbledore he deserved trust. In Book 6 he says: "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely." Now, one thing that's interesting about that is that we still don't know exactly why he trusts Snape. Harry thinks it's because of Snape's expressed remorse over the death of Harry's parents, but at this moment, he has already said that to Harry, and Rowling hints that Dumbledore was considering whether or not to tell Harry the ultimate reason why he trusts Snape. I imagine we'll find out for sure in Book 7; in the meantime, we can speculate. Could Snape have made a previous Unbreakable Vow to work against Voldemort? Is there something he did in the first war that he couldn't possibly have done if he still supported the Death Eaters? If it's either of those, what could the vow or action have been?


Thank you for the compliment. I agree you are right that Dumbledore did say he trusts Severus fully, but we don't know why.
But look at how he talked to Draco Malfoy. Malfoy showed all the signs of being a Voldemort supporter from the beginning of the series with his first comments to Harry about being in Slitherin and not allowing the "other kind" (aka muggle-born wizards) into the school. His father is still a Voldermort supporter as is the father's of Crabbe and Goyle. However Dumbledore still tries to convince Malfoy that he doesn't have to follow Voldemort and Malfoy almost is convinced! Maybe Malfoy will be a surprise Harry supporter in the end. Harry may never trust Malfoy but Dumbledore obviously gives trust beyond a lot of wizards.
If Dumbledore can give trust to people who don't necessarily deserve it could he have been wrong to trust Snape? He was fooled by Mad Eye Moody's imposter, young Barty Crouch.


The implicit promise to the reader in any book (or series) is that there is a series of problems that, by the end of the book, will be solved. Especially in a book written for younger audiences, as the series originally was.

Okay, quick reminder for you all. JK Rowling wrote this series for ADULTS. After getting rejected by (47?) so many publishers when one said "yes, but we will market it towards kids" she said fine but I am still writing for adults. The publishers were smart because they more than doubled the readership that way.
Second of all there is no written promise like that. Look at the Series of Unfortunate Events. Lemony Snicket promises that the ending will not be happy.


Actually, I think I've just raised another interesting point - is there anyone in the books who's just as sweet as punch, but who is actually just putting on a very good act, and working for the bad guys? And if not, why not? I would call that Evil.
That was a good point too. I think Barty Crouch comes the closest although if there is another I think Percy is the second closest. Remember what Ron says, Percy would probably turn in a family member if it meant he would rise up in the world.


Ten bucks says Harry is the last Horcrux.

Now wouldn't that be a whizbang ending:
Harry: "Draco, kill me!"
Draco: "All right!"


Finally, I think Harry is the last horcrux. They questioned in the 6th book about if a horcrux could be put into a human, and Dumbledore said that they maybe could. I mean think about it, what would Voldemort want more as a horcrux than the guy who had a prophesy saying he would kill him? I'm not sure if Dumbledore and Snape know this- but they must have a suspicion by now Harry has a very large role to play if they wish to defeat Voldemort.

Now on the subject of the last Horcrux you guys quit saying Harry is a horcrux because he is not. First of all why would Voldemort want to kill Harry if he had concealed a part of his soul in Harry? Second of all...wait the first point is the only point. Why make a horcrux to save yourself from death just to kill it!?

Here it is straight from the book HBP pg 506:

"I don't thinks so, " said Dumbledore. " I think I know what the sixth Horcrux is. I wonder what you will say when I confess that I have been curious for a while about the behavior of the snake, Nagini?"
"The snake?" said Harry, startled. "you can use animals as Horcruxes?"
"Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because to condfide a part of you soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business. However, if my calculations are correct, Voldermort was still at least one Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents' house with the intention of killing you.
"He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. you would certainly havee been that. he believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death.
"As we know, he failed. After and interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux....

We know this because Dumbledore speculates that Voldemort was going to make a horcrux through Harry's murder. Remember he makes the horcrux out of an object by murdering a person. For example he made a horcrux out of the ring after murdering someone. Now we know there are supposedly 6 horcruxes: the ring, the diary, Hufflepuffs cup, the locket, and the last two are guesses, Nagini and possibly a ravenclaw or gryffindor relic. Dumbledore says it is inadvisable to use a living thing because it is harder to control. So, no, Harry is not a Horcrux. It is a nice idea and I will say Yea! if it turns you are right and that is why he has the scar on his forehead and why he is so linked to Voldemort throughout all the books, but in the meantime the books are saying that it is most likely not the case.
Incidently in Slugg's memory he said there was a spell to encase the damaged part of the soul in the object. The only way that Harry could have become a Horcrux is if Voldemort cast that spell on Harry after he killed James and Lilly. But then why would he dissappear after that?

I think Amortencia would smell like a newborn baby (after they clean it up), my husband's cologne (eau de toilette), and a flower garden.

Time to go

[Steward]

Remember what Ron says, Percy would probably turn in a family member if it meant he would rise up in the world.


I'm not sure we can trust Ron for completely objective and factual analyses of Percy's personality. After all, he just betrayed their family and insulted them all. I'd like to think that Percy has at least some sort of ethics and a line that he just won't cross.

[Zeful]

Wow there are a lot of good thoughts about stuff. I thought I might add something to the conversation.

On Horcruxes
What if Harry has a Horcrux and doesn't know it yet? I mean Lilly's sacrifice reflected the Aveada Kerada spell from Harry to Voldermort, but what if the Horcrux making spell was also reflected? Harry did techinicly kill Voldemort so part of his soul would have been rent and would have been absorbed by whatever (most likely Voldemort's wand) and created a Horcrux. Harry without knowing it now is just like Voldemort, nearly immortal. So now Voldemort wants to kill the boy so he can be a big man, and eventually does so, but Harry comes back to life right there (Voldemort's orginal body was totaled when the spell backfired so horcruxes might just reanimate the dead dude by stimulating the spirit or some completely resonable solution) sit's up and get killed again and again and again, because V can't figure out what's going on. Snape after like the second time outright kills Voldemort. Dumbledoor comes back as a spirit, and explains everything to Harry, who tries to kill himself and can't figure out why, he then goes on a search to destroy his own horcrux and destroys it so he can have a normal, non-immortal life.

Sorry 'bout the rant.

[Fishies]

Horcruxes only work once each, I thought?

[Steward]

Horcruxes only work once each, I thought?

That's not true. You can use the Horcrux as often as you want until someone breaks it.

[Zeful]

Horcruxes only work once each, I thought?
Then there would be no point for Voldemort to make them if it would give him seven lives. And it would make the ending less dramatic.

Harry: What do mean they only work once!
Dumbeldoor's Ghost: I must have forgotten to mention that.
Harry: That's convinent. Aveada Kerada!
Dumbeldorr's ghost: *Explodes*
Emperor Palpatine: Yess, let the anger flow through you.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

In other news: http://www.helenabonhamcarter.com.ar/helena-bonham-carter.jpg
Helena Bonham-Carter is to play Bellatrix Lestrange in the next Potter movie.

Yay!! ;D ;D ;D
*does a little dance*

Sorry, didn't know where else to put this. Keen watchers of the Altair will know his penchant for Ms Bonham-Carter. ;)

[Caillach]

I think H_ K's got it right.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Usually, I don't like to try to second guess what authors are up to before I read their books... Usually, I prefer to let the story in and absorb it as though someone was reading it to me...

But!

This is the final book of the Potter series we're looking at here. How could I not speculate?

Harry dies? I doubt it. Much of the speculation on that seems to be based on JK's not saying that he won't die when she said that two major characters die in the upcoming book. Dramatically, killing the hero is a punchline of poignancy - you want to make a big point about the world, injustice, the senselessness of a situation? Then you kill your hero. It's a precarious thing to do - if the hero is also the works "narrator", in that all the action follows that character and the reader is rarely shown any action that the heroes does not witness, then killing them makes closing the story afterward very difficult. Harry is a narrator hero. We get to read his thoughts - we never get to read the thoughts of other characters (as far as I recall). A more likely hero to die is one who isn't the narrator - and there aren't such characters in Harry Potter.(Examples of heroes who are not the narrator: Reece in Terminator, Gatsby in The Great Gatsby [doesn't die, but looses out], Heathcliffe in Wuthering Heights.) Ron and Hermione are supporting cast, not literary heroes.
Because there are no non-narrator heroes, only a cast of very strong supporting characters to whom Harry is attached, I don't think we have any concrete clue who JK is going to kill off in this last book.

Voldemort dies? I expect so. We have the prophesy to fulfil. How could You Know Who not die, but the series end satifactorily? In the interests of speculation... with all his Horcruxes destroyed, is Voldemort any threat? Perhaps, with the evil splinters of his soul destroyed, Lord V becomes a shrivelled and stunted impotent thing, unnable to die in his undead body, truly powerless and forlorn, imprisoned in some way for eternity. Perhaps.

Snape isn't evil? I suspect we're being double-bluffed here. We were so amused to find that Snape wasn't the bad guy in the Philosopher's Stone, and felt so superior to the kids in the book for realising that he was a good guy who just didn't like Harry - that the twist of him "being evil" and killing Dumbledore is just perfect! Of course he's evil! Harry was right all along... But, as has been argued elsewhere, maybe he's working with Dumbledore to infiltrate deeper into the Death Eaters. There's plenty of evidence, I'll not bother repeating it again.

Dumbledore's not dead? No? It read like he was pretty dead to me... Again, there's plenty of evidence that he's not dead, much of which hinges on Snape's alignment (for want of a better term). Personally, I suspect he is dead, but will manifest from beyond the veil in some way to help Harry out - most likely with advice rather than physical help. Look at classic literature: Merlin teaches Arthur and guides him, but then is trapped / killed / whatever, able only to visit Arthur in dreams and visions to continue to advise him; Obi Wan Kenobi (classic literature!) dies to save Luke, but returns as a vision to guide him; Prince Hamlet's father returns as a ghost to tell his son he was murdered. Wouldn't it be more satisfying if Harry manages to take on Voldemort himself, rather than relying on a deus ex machina in the form of a not-dead-Dumbledore?

As for romance - we don't need to see these heroic characters married, we just want them to be happy when we shut the book. Let's have Ron and Hermione admit they like each other that way and let them kiss for goodness sake! And Harry and Ginny ought to get a happy ending - that's been foreshadowed since book one.

Of course, they're JK's books, she can do what she wants. I'll just kick back my easy chair and let her tell me what happened. After all, the story started and ended in the 90s.

[Steward]

We get to read his thoughts - we never get to read the thoughts of other characters (as far as I recall).

First chapter of book one is narrated from Vernon Dursley's POV, and the first chapter of book six is narrated from the Muggle Prime Minister's POV. Don't see why JKR can't switch narrators for an epilogue of sorts.

[Fishies]

Dumbledore's dead; he fell off a frickin' tower.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

First chapter of book one is narrated from Vernon Dursley's POV, and the first chapter of book six is narrated from the Muggle Prime Minister's POV. Don't see why JKR can't switch narrators for an epilogue of sorts.
Ah, yes, I remember those. They are both introductions, though... Okay, so it's possible that she'll change narrators. It's also possible that she'll have Harry join forces with Lord Voldemort and re-enact some horrific slash fan-fiction scene with Snape. I just doubt it.

[Steward]

Ah, yes, I remember those. They are both introductions, though... Okay, so it's possible that she'll change narrators. It's also possible that she'll have Harry join forces with Lord Voldemort and re-enact some horrific slash fan-fiction scene with Snape. I just doubt it.

And in chapter 2, which was certainly not an intro, it was narrated by Bellatrix Lestrange. I don't understand why it's so horribly unlikely that the chapter after Harry dies might be narrated by one of his friends, or even an omniscient narrator.

[Starla]

Dumbledore's dead; he fell off a frickin' tower.

Neville was dropped from a second story window head first and he bounced and that was how they new he had magic in him.

"James and Lilly Potter die in a car crash? It's an outrage a scandal!" Hagrid book 1

[Altair_the_Vexed]

And in chapter 2, which was certainly not an intro, it was narrated by Bellatrix Lestrange. I don't understand why it's so horribly unlikely that the chapter after Harry dies might be narrated by one of his friends, or even an omniscient narrator.

Okay, okay... Yes, Harry COULD die. But it would be a dumb, third-rate shock-value way to end a series of books.

By the way - Chapter 2 of The Half-Blood Prince follows on directly from the Muggle Prime Minister introduction, and is still scene-setting - foreshadowing events to come and giving the reader dramatic information that overarches the whole rest of the story.

I just think it would be DREADFUL dramatic form to kill Harry. It's a hack trick. The story is about Harry's journey through life, his growing up and taking on responsibility, learning the lessons he needs to be the true hero. It's a mythic journey, like Perseus and Gilgamesh and Luke Skywalker.

Sure, you could work in his death to that story arc, but it sucks. Death in drama is there to make a point, or to motivate the hero, or to advance the plot in some way. Harry dying might end the story, and there are a bunch of interesting ways in which Harry might need to die posted up here - but it's a cliche of elementary proportions. It's on a par with waking up and it was "all a dream".

JK has stuck to all the conventional dramatic forms of a linear narrative - even the flashbacks we get are through the pensieve and other magical means. That's a magnificent achievement in this day and age, when poorly-executed anti-conventional story-telling is the pulp-fiction norm. I just don't think she's going to throw the rules out for the last book.

[Steward]

I didn't say he was going to die. I was just criticizing your apparent disbelief that it's possible for someone else to narrate a chapter after the final battle.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I didn't say he was going to die. I was just criticizing your apparent disbelief that it's possible for someone else to narrate a chapter after the final battle.

I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that JK would resort to such dreadful tactics for a whole bunch of reasons, but particularly because it would necessitate someone else narrating, which is inconsistent. Yes, she could give us a non-Harry epilogue, but I doubt she'd stoop so low.

[Steward]

I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that JK would resort to such dreadful tactics for a whole bunch of reasons, but particularly because it would necessitate someone else narrating, which is inconsistent. Yes, she could give us a non-Harry epilogue, but I doubt she'd stoop so low.

Why is it a 'dreadful tactic'?

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Killing off Harry is a dreadful tactic because it's a cliche, because it hinges on building a character up for several years and then killing him off for no dramatic purpose other than shock value, because it's not fitting for the genre, belonging more in a slasher movie than a fantasy adventure, and because it will not contributre to the excitement of readers, only to their disappointment and sadness.

Of course, everyone dies. JK may have Harry die after he's achieved his quest goal - defeating Voldemort. We may get to read about this.
There are precedents for heroic deaths in the great fantasy pieces of the past: Arthurian Legend, Beowulf, the Chronicles of Narnia. In these cases, the main task of the hero(es) is done, and death is gift of rest, often a transcendence to paradise (but notice that a paradise in the afterlife is not something that JK Rowling has put in her stories so far). Perhaps the discussion about Nicholas Flammel happily setting his life in order and welcoming death is foreshadowing of Harry's deliberate sacrifice at the end of a long struggle.

Yes, it is possible that against my expectations of the dramatic flow of the Harry Potter series, the lead character will die. I just really doubt it.

[Holy_Knight]

Hey guys,

Well, I know I've been gone from this thread and the forum for a while (other than a recounting of a certain bird incident), but I haven't stopped thinking about these things, and when it's not 2:30 in the morning, I've got some more ideas to throw around, not to mention comment on some of your guys' great suggestions. But anyway, this isn't just a teaser post; the reason I'm posting now is because I just saw an interview with J.K. Rowling where she said specifically:

"Dumbledore is definitely dead"

--which was obviously rather relevant to our discussion. Here's a link which I think goes straight to the interview, but if it doesn't then you should be able to select it from the menu below it (it's "Q&A with J.K. Rowling"):

Interview (http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=93CE9D52-502F-40DE-9024-ADFC84A3A6D2,A1B39E4E-078B-4E0D-8B6D-8E2176D11955,B279CCFF-CC80-4042-897E-9FF7347ED69C,D5C6C662-9A41-4CB5-B7EF-8FFA7E098B88&t=c1941&f=06/64&p=)

Thought everyone would find that as interesting and exciting as I did. I'll post more later, but for now, take care everyone. :)

--HK

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Ah.
Dumbledore may well be dead, but will he help Harry posthumously..? She says we shouldn't expect Dumbledore to "do a Gandalf", but that doesn't preclude him doing an Obi Wan...
As a ghost, his portrait, via the pensieve...

I love the blunt question one of the audience asks: "Is Snape good or bad?"
I also like that Ms Rowling doesn't answer it...

[DaCreature]

I don't think so, but it's possible. I really have no idea about that. But I think it's usually objects that are important to the person that are made as Horcruxes.

Actually Nagina, Voldemort's pet snake is a hoarcrux I believe. This is the link between Lord V and Harry, you see, he has a peice of V's soul in him and that is why they seem to share this link. Harry see's things through V's eyes. The death of Harry's mother was that which inadvertently caused him to become the hoarcrux. Hence the reason why Harry has to die in order for Voldemort to be able to be killed.

[Fishybugs]

I do believe Dumbledore is dead. I believe Dumbledore died to protect Harry.

Lilly died protecting Harry, and it was her love that carried over and continued to protect Harry all those years. Voldemort found a way around that. In GoF, page 696 (American hardback copy), after returning from the Graveyard in GoF, Harry was relaying the occurrences to Dumbledore, and when Harry told him that Voldemort was able to touch Harry without any problem, there was a "gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes".

Why would this be?

Because he wants Voldemort to believe he's safe to attack Harry. Dumbledore has now died protecting Harry. I believe Dumbledore loves Harry just about as much as Lilly did, and that "old magic" protection is back in place.

Next time Voldemort attempts to Avada Kedavra Harry, this time with no horcruxes, he's going to be in for a very large surprise.

In related news, pp. 697-8 of the same chapter, Dumbledore states (in reference to priori incantatum), "No spell can reawaken the dead. All that would have happened is a kind of reverse echo. A shadow of the living..."

I don't believe that Harry's parents will be back.

Sorry to make my first meaningful post so long, but I read the whole thread today and wanted to get my two cents in.

Thanks.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Something just struck me: what about the Time Turner?

We've not seen that since the Prisoner of Azkaban. Anyone know where it is?

[Barbarian_Dan]

I imagine it has been returned. I don't recall all the details, but I thought the time turners were kept somewhere in the ministry and Herminonie had gotten permission to 'borrow' one during that school year.

[Dumbledore_lives13]

Okay every time turner was destroyed at the ministry when they broke in at the end of the fifth book. Remember the bell jar and the room with all the clocks? It had the time turners. And if you need any more info I'd go to this site http://www.mugglenet.com/levelnine/timetravel/

[Umbral_Arcanist]

For me it comes down to this:

If Rowling makes Snape evil, she is dead to me, frankly i find the series worth reading but not as spectacular as it's being made out to be by the world at large, i find popcorn fantasy like RA Salvatore better to say nothing of Terry Pratchett or Tolkien......

And the fact a detestable guy like Snape is actually good was pretty much the one reason i liked it.... Kind of odd i know, but that's the way i am...