Harry Potter Spoilers

If you are still unaware of what happens in Book 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and you don’t want to know…DO NOT READ THIS.

I’m not kidding, I plan on going into some detail, here, so if you want to read the book, and you get mad when people spoil the fun…DO NOT READ THIS!

I have waited a whole week to comment on it, figuring it would be unfair to readers just nosing around to suddenly get information they did not want.

But a week is enough time. While waiting to be able to write about Book 6, I’ve emailed other bloggers to death about it. Now I’ll bother you.

First off, (Again, if you have already read the book) DO go take some time to read Dave Kopel’s excellent and thoughtful comments (and links to his other Potter pieces) on HBP as he explains his belief that Severus Snape will end up being the hero of the series. I tend to concur with Dave, but I must say that while I think much of his reasoning is brilliant, I do not reach my conclusion via the same route.

I’m still betting that RAB is Regulus Black…as I recall he and Sirius had a great uncle or something named Alaric, or something like that – that could be what the A stands for. If you go back to Book 5, you’ll recall a locket is found among the items in Sirius’ house – a locket that no one can open. I don’t know why Regulus would not have destroyed it, though.

Now, of course, we will have to wonder if Mundungus fenced it somewhere, since in book 6, it’s clear he’s ransacked Sirius’ house.

Like Dave, I do believe Snape will be the hero of this series. He clearly killed Dumbledore because DD asked him to, knowing he was dying, knowing that Malfoy (more coerced than evil) would be killed for NOT killing Dumbledore and knowing (I believe) that Snape had undertaken an unbreakable vow to help Malfoy. Had Snape not killed DD, he would have died himself. With DD dying anyway, the OoftP would have been materially weakened to lose Snape.

I can’t help but wonder, though, if Snape had not also made an unbreakable vow w/ Dumbledore, long ago, about helping to protect Harry. DD suggests that Snape came to him with heavy remorse over the death of James and Lilly Potter – perhaps Dumbledore had Snape promise that he would help to protect Potter, from Voldemort. It would explain a great deal. Some would say that DD’s style is not unbreakable vows, that he worked from trust and ego-bolstering, but Snape may very well have wanted to make such a vow, himself, in atonement, or to prove his remorse and conversion.

I think the reason Snape’s face was full of hate before he killed Dumbledore, a question that is intriguing many, was because he hated the position he was put in – hated to kill the one man who utterly believed in his redemption. But that’s just my thought.

The question, of course, is if Snape made an unbreakable vow to protect Harry from Voldemort, then the Harry-the-Horcrux theory gets very complicated. I think Snape is going to help Harry get close to Voldemort, and then when Voldemort kills Harry, Snape will kill him. Only then will Hogwarts be able to re-open – likely with Snape as headmaster, Hermione as an instructor, and Ron and Ginny as Aurors.

It is quite a tale of redemption, really. Snape, the Death Eater, finding redemption in honorable battle.

About Dumbledore: some are saying he may not have died, that since his body was found but he was not actually seen dying, he will reappear in the last book. I’m not too sure about that. Remember, when Harry went into Dumbledore’s office with Prof. McGonagle, there was already a portrait of Dumbledore (past headmaster) framed and on the wall…although…he was only sleeping…interesting. Will we see Dumbldore re-emerge, somehow, in Book 7? I can’t see him up on that wall in a picture frame…that would actually make him accessible to Harry and I think we will not see that until very near the end of 7. And I sort of dread the eventual movie…Richard Harris would have played the potion-drinking scene so incredibly well…ah, alas.

I thought the most interesting thing about the Horcruxes was their Eucharistic character – not exact, of course but it was striking to hear Dumbledore explain to Harry that the Horcruxes were “hosts” which contained part of the SOUL of LV.

Anyway, Dave has some marvelous ideas, and his links are great fun, too. If you have a quiet Sunday evening ahead of you, and you’ve finished HBP and want some puzzles to think about – he’s the go-to guy!

UPDATE: Fausta has interesting theories, as well, and I don’t know how I missed Betsy’s excellent write-up of it, but somehow I did. You’ll like.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Mir

    This is the first day I’ve read stuff on Harry Potter at various websites (the link you provided and a subsequent link there). I’ve wanted just to enjoy the books without talks of theories and possibilities. So, here I thought I was so clever for thinking Harry was the Horcrux. I’m clearly not alone. ; )

    Anyway, I’ve felt that Snape was ready for something heroic since I read his memory. I believe he was very much in love with Lily Potter. And I see him as a tortured character who is making atonement for an evil past. That memory made us sympathize with “evil old” Snape, and because Harry and Neville and the other Gryffindors either hate or fear him (or both), he’s just ripe to be the big hero.

    I’d have to go back and recheck HPVI, but I don’t get where Harry HAS to die (although I can see where this would be a symmetrical ending–he dies taking down Voldemort). When Dumbledore destroyed the ring horcrux, the ring was broken, but it existed. (I don’t recall it having to be essentially totally annihilated). It may be that Voldemort’s power made Harry a Horcrux, and Voldemort’s power, in a final climactic battle, may unmake that Harry-Horcrux, and leave Harry very damaged, scarred in a different way, but alive. Or perhaps remove the scar which was orignally placed there. Haven’t thought it out much.

    If anyone is due for a dying I think it is Snape. He’s the one who is atoning for his hand in Lily’s death.(Frankly, I don’t think he cared that James was killed. Had I been Snape, I sure wouldn’t.) I think just as Lily gave up her life to save Harry the first time; Snape will give up his life to save Harry the second, and he will be doing it FOR Lily, not for Harry.

    I think Harry as Horcrux does make sense of the connection to V and the parseltongue and the super-Wizardliness. Dumbledore’s chat with Harry about the prophecy made it obvious that without V’s interference, Harry may not have been a very great wizard. V created his own nemesis.

    I would like to add that I believe Neville may very well end up being crucial in the finale. I have no idea what Severus’ birthday is, but if all three are born as July is dying (Anyone have a clue when Severus was born?), it may be that the trio cooperates in the final battle: Harry may be injured as he’s un-horcruxed, Severus may land a damaging blow on V, and Neville may actually land the killing blow. Or some other conbination thereof.

    I really need to reread 1-5, especially, 5 again, in order to see what goodies I missed. I’ve only read each book once, and I’ve avoided extraneous commentary. So, clearly, I’m missing clues. :)

    Anyway, this is a wonderful series. I am so, so, so eager to read Book 7 that I wish Rowling has it done already and they surprise us with a soon publication of the grand finale.

    How can anyone NOT enjoy these delightful books?

    Mir

  • Mir

    This is the first day I’ve read stuff on Harry Potter at various websites (the link you provided and a subsequent link there). I’ve wanted just to enjoy the books without talks of theories and possibilities. So, here I thought I was so clever for thinking Harry was the Horcrux. I’m clearly not alone. ; )

    Anyway, I’ve felt that Snape was ready for something heroic since I read his memory. I believe he was very much in love with Lily Potter. And I see him as a tortured character who is making atonement for an evil past. That memory made us sympathize with “evil old” Snape, and because Harry and Neville and the other Gryffindors either hate or fear him (or both), he’s just ripe to be the big hero.

    I’d have to go back and recheck HPVI, but I don’t get where Harry HAS to die (although I can see where this would be a symmetrical ending–he dies taking down Voldemort). When Dumbledore destroyed the ring horcrux, the ring was broken, but it existed. (I don’t recall it having to be essentially totally annihilated). It may be that Voldemort’s power made Harry a Horcrux, and Voldemort’s power, in a final climactic battle, may unmake that Harry-Horcrux, and leave Harry very damaged, scarred in a different way, but alive. Or perhaps remove the scar which was orignally placed there. Haven’t thought it out much.

    If anyone is due for a dying I think it is Snape. He’s the one who is atoning for his hand in Lily’s death.(Frankly, I don’t think he cared that James was killed. Had I been Snape, I sure wouldn’t.) I think just as Lily gave up her life to save Harry the first time; Snape will give up his life to save Harry the second, and he will be doing it FOR Lily, not for Harry.

    I think Harry as Horcrux does make sense of the connection to V and the parseltongue and the super-Wizardliness. Dumbledore’s chat with Harry about the prophecy made it obvious that without V’s interference, Harry may not have been a very great wizard. V created his own nemesis.

    I would like to add that I believe Neville may very well end up being crucial in the finale. I have no idea what Severus’ birthday is, but if all three are born as July is dying (Anyone have a clue when Severus was born?), it may be that the trio cooperates in the final battle: Harry may be injured as he’s un-horcruxed, Severus may land a damaging blow on V, and Neville may actually land the killing blow. Or some other conbination thereof.

    I really need to reread 1-5, especially, 5 again, in order to see what goodies I missed. I’ve only read each book once, and I’ve avoided extraneous commentary. So, clearly, I’m missing clues. :)

    Anyway, this is a wonderful series. I am so, so, so eager to read Book 7 that I wish Rowling has it done already and they surprise us with a soon publication of the grand finale.

    How can anyone NOT enjoy these delightful books?

    Mir

  • RJGatorEsq

    A few points.
    -
    First, in an interview, J.K. Rowling said she was flabbergasted that anyone would think Snape was good. JKR is usually pretty truthful. She won’t disclose much, but when she does, it tends to be true.
    -
    Second, Dumbledore’s reason for trusting Snape is so weak that it is almost silly. JKR usually puts together plausible reasons for what the characters do. In this case, for Dumbledore to, in effect, trust the fate of the entire wizarding world on Snape’s expressions of remorse are pretty unbelievable. Geez, Dumbledore is an accomplished Legilimens, and THAT is the best he can do to verify Snape’s bona fides?
    -
    Third, Occam’s Razor. Snape talks like a Bad Guy, acts like a Bad Guy, has a history of being a Bad Guy: I am just not having a hard time believing he is…well, a Bad Guy.
    -
    Still, ths stuff is SO fun to noodle around. I read Granger’s book and about a half-dozen others. I hope, once the series is done, JKR publishes her notes, outlines, and drafts.
    -
    Oh, if JKR is reading this: watch your health. Have regular checkups. No dangerous activities for you until Book 7 is finished. LOL
    ___________

  • RJGatorEsq

    A few points.
    -
    First, in an interview, J.K. Rowling said she was flabbergasted that anyone would think Snape was good. JKR is usually pretty truthful. She won’t disclose much, but when she does, it tends to be true.
    -
    Second, Dumbledore’s reason for trusting Snape is so weak that it is almost silly. JKR usually puts together plausible reasons for what the characters do. In this case, for Dumbledore to, in effect, trust the fate of the entire wizarding world on Snape’s expressions of remorse are pretty unbelievable. Geez, Dumbledore is an accomplished Legilimens, and THAT is the best he can do to verify Snape’s bona fides?
    -
    Third, Occam’s Razor. Snape talks like a Bad Guy, acts like a Bad Guy, has a history of being a Bad Guy: I am just not having a hard time believing he is…well, a Bad Guy.
    -
    Still, ths stuff is SO fun to noodle around. I read Granger’s book and about a half-dozen others. I hope, once the series is done, JKR publishes her notes, outlines, and drafts.
    -
    Oh, if JKR is reading this: watch your health. Have regular checkups. No dangerous activities for you until Book 7 is finished. LOL
    ___________

  • Bob Koeth

    Anchoress, You are sucking me into reading these books! I have avoided this eventhough two of my kids have been faithful HP readers. This happened to me before! I went to the first LOFTR movies and got hooked. I read, and thoroughly enjoyed, the LOFTR series. It looks like I have SIX books to begin to read. Thanks-o-heap!

  • Bob Koeth

    Anchoress, You are sucking me into reading these books! I have avoided this eventhough two of my kids have been faithful HP readers. This happened to me before! I went to the first LOFTR movies and got hooked. I read, and thoroughly enjoyed, the LOFTR series. It looks like I have SIX books to begin to read. Thanks-o-heap!

  • Mir

    RJ, while I agree with you that JK’s comments are something to take into consideration, I also figure she’s not gonna give away any big surprise ending if Snape actually does good.

    And Snape doing something good doesn’t equate to him being good. His inclinations seem to be dark, from his youth, although not as dark as Lord V’s. But a bad guy can do a good thing for his own reasons.

    Mir

  • Mir

    RJ, while I agree with you that JK’s comments are something to take into consideration, I also figure she’s not gonna give away any big surprise ending if Snape actually does good.

    And Snape doing something good doesn’t equate to him being good. His inclinations seem to be dark, from his youth, although not as dark as Lord V’s. But a bad guy can do a good thing for his own reasons.

    Mir

  • Wanda

    Ahh, Harry Potter theories! First of all, I have to say that I hated Book 5; I was ready to give up on the whole series, and I didn’t expect much from Book 6. But as (I think) Louis B. Mayer said, “I expected it to be a bomb, but I was pleasantly disappointed!” I really liked this one, and it’s had its usual effect on me of inspiring all sorts of theories. Anyway, here’s my big Horcrux theory:
    The Horcrux in the cave was not the locket at all – it was the *potion*. If the only way to get to the locket was the drink the potion (and it’s very clear that only a superb wizard could even hope to get to that point), then by doing so, the drinker would take into himself Voldemort’s soul-fragment, and would himself *become* the Horcrux. Voldemort would think this was a brilliant safeguard – the only way his enemy could destroy the soul-fragment would be to destroy himself, and to Voldemort, that would be unimaginable. No one would willingly surrender to death – foolproof! So I think Slytherin’s locket was never in the basin in the first place – Voldemort would not waste it as mere bait, and he’d already used one Slytherin artifact as a Horcrux anyway. If that’s Slytherin’s locket at Grimmauld Place, then it got there some other way. Dumbledore was the first to get to the Horcrux in the cave – no one got there ahead of them.

    This explains a couple of things – Snape’s look of hatred and loathing when he AK’d Dumbledore on top of the tower. It was not Dumbledore he was looking at that way – it was Voldemort, whom he was killing at the same moment. Also, Dumbledore’s funny little comment to Draco that he came back “after a fashion” – it wasn’t quite Dumbledore who came back, it was him and another – Voldemort. I’m not quite sure about the moment when he spoke Snape’s name just before the AK – Harry definitely says that Dumbledore was pleading. He could have been pleading with Snape to remember the agreement they’d made in advance, that this had to be done. OR…it could have been Voldemort pleading. Dumbledore wouldn’t beg for his life, but I’ll bet Voldemort would, and he’d address Snape by his first name, too. Snape might have been revolted by that, as well. But that’s just a fanciful theory of mine, there’s no way to know.

    This leaves me with the puzzle of the note in the locket. I think that Dumbledore put that message in there, knowing that he was going to his death in order to destroy the Horcrux. There’s something odd about that note – it isn’t written like any other note in the book. Every line is centered, including the R.A.B. at the bottom. It looks like an inscription, not a note – it’s formatted the way a formal notice would be, and I’m sure that’s not accidental. I think that R.A.B. are not the initials of a person – I think that they stand for a message, like ‘R.I.P.’ on a tombstone. It could be English or Latin, a spell, a quote, a saying – I don’t know – but I think it’s something that Voldemort would instantly recognize.

  • Wanda

    Ahh, Harry Potter theories! First of all, I have to say that I hated Book 5; I was ready to give up on the whole series, and I didn’t expect much from Book 6. But as (I think) Louis B. Mayer said, “I expected it to be a bomb, but I was pleasantly disappointed!” I really liked this one, and it’s had its usual effect on me of inspiring all sorts of theories. Anyway, here’s my big Horcrux theory:
    The Horcrux in the cave was not the locket at all – it was the *potion*. If the only way to get to the locket was the drink the potion (and it’s very clear that only a superb wizard could even hope to get to that point), then by doing so, the drinker would take into himself Voldemort’s soul-fragment, and would himself *become* the Horcrux. Voldemort would think this was a brilliant safeguard – the only way his enemy could destroy the soul-fragment would be to destroy himself, and to Voldemort, that would be unimaginable. No one would willingly surrender to death – foolproof! So I think Slytherin’s locket was never in the basin in the first place – Voldemort would not waste it as mere bait, and he’d already used one Slytherin artifact as a Horcrux anyway. If that’s Slytherin’s locket at Grimmauld Place, then it got there some other way. Dumbledore was the first to get to the Horcrux in the cave – no one got there ahead of them.

    This explains a couple of things – Snape’s look of hatred and loathing when he AK’d Dumbledore on top of the tower. It was not Dumbledore he was looking at that way – it was Voldemort, whom he was killing at the same moment. Also, Dumbledore’s funny little comment to Draco that he came back “after a fashion” – it wasn’t quite Dumbledore who came back, it was him and another – Voldemort. I’m not quite sure about the moment when he spoke Snape’s name just before the AK – Harry definitely says that Dumbledore was pleading. He could have been pleading with Snape to remember the agreement they’d made in advance, that this had to be done. OR…it could have been Voldemort pleading. Dumbledore wouldn’t beg for his life, but I’ll bet Voldemort would, and he’d address Snape by his first name, too. Snape might have been revolted by that, as well. But that’s just a fanciful theory of mine, there’s no way to know.

    This leaves me with the puzzle of the note in the locket. I think that Dumbledore put that message in there, knowing that he was going to his death in order to destroy the Horcrux. There’s something odd about that note – it isn’t written like any other note in the book. Every line is centered, including the R.A.B. at the bottom. It looks like an inscription, not a note – it’s formatted the way a formal notice would be, and I’m sure that’s not accidental. I think that R.A.B. are not the initials of a person – I think that they stand for a message, like ‘R.I.P.’ on a tombstone. It could be English or Latin, a spell, a quote, a saying – I don’t know – but I think it’s something that Voldemort would instantly recognize.

  • Mir

    Wanda, I read a couple of places on the web that held that same notion–that the potion itself was the horcrux. I think that’s a nifty notion. It would explain why Albus saw such horrible things (obviously, having a very evil soul in you can bring terrible visions). It would also explain why when Snape cursed Albus, there was this big flying away of the body (the Horcrux being destroyed causing the upheaval).

    Sorry to hear you didn’t like book five. I loved it. Books three and five have been my faves, because of the chilling atmosphere and the sense of dread. It was teeth-jarringly tense, that fifth installment. Totalitarian systems do that to me. ; )

    Mir

  • Mir

    Wanda, I read a couple of places on the web that held that same notion–that the potion itself was the horcrux. I think that’s a nifty notion. It would explain why Albus saw such horrible things (obviously, having a very evil soul in you can bring terrible visions). It would also explain why when Snape cursed Albus, there was this big flying away of the body (the Horcrux being destroyed causing the upheaval).

    Sorry to hear you didn’t like book five. I loved it. Books three and five have been my faves, because of the chilling atmosphere and the sense of dread. It was teeth-jarringly tense, that fifth installment. Totalitarian systems do that to me. ; )

    Mir

  • Wanda

    It wasn’t the image of totalitarianism in Book 5 that bothered me – that actually showed some promise. It was the endless temper tantrums of our stupid, sullen hero that disgusted me. But now that you’ve mentioned the totalitarianism theme, that puts me in mind of something I thought of when this latest book came out. Rowling’s fictional world seems to have no overt religion in it, which is fine. But the author does have a sort of religion which permeates the story, and that is multiculturalism. The struggle between Good and Evil that everyone talks about concerns a specific Good versus a particular kind of Evil. Dumbledore’s Hogwarts is a multicultural model – students from every kind of ethnic background, including non-magical heritage, are welcomed and taught to reach their full potential. This is threatened by chauvinistic racists. When Rowling started writing in 1997 or so, this was just accepted as a permanent feature of life, but today multiculturalism is falling apart. It looks pretty silly now to try to write a huge sweeping multi-volume story where the villains are…white English aristocrats. What is it going to look like 2 or 3 years from now, when her last book comes out? The whole main theme is going to be a fossil. I don’t blame her – who could foresee that our basic understanding of the world would change in just a few years? But it has, and now the whole “pureblood” thing just sounds like a bit of a joke to me.

  • Wanda

    It wasn’t the image of totalitarianism in Book 5 that bothered me – that actually showed some promise. It was the endless temper tantrums of our stupid, sullen hero that disgusted me. But now that you’ve mentioned the totalitarianism theme, that puts me in mind of something I thought of when this latest book came out. Rowling’s fictional world seems to have no overt religion in it, which is fine. But the author does have a sort of religion which permeates the story, and that is multiculturalism. The struggle between Good and Evil that everyone talks about concerns a specific Good versus a particular kind of Evil. Dumbledore’s Hogwarts is a multicultural model – students from every kind of ethnic background, including non-magical heritage, are welcomed and taught to reach their full potential. This is threatened by chauvinistic racists. When Rowling started writing in 1997 or so, this was just accepted as a permanent feature of life, but today multiculturalism is falling apart. It looks pretty silly now to try to write a huge sweeping multi-volume story where the villains are…white English aristocrats. What is it going to look like 2 or 3 years from now, when her last book comes out? The whole main theme is going to be a fossil. I don’t blame her – who could foresee that our basic understanding of the world would change in just a few years? But it has, and now the whole “pureblood” thing just sounds like a bit of a joke to me.

  • http://badhairblog.blogspot.com Fausta

    Thank you Anchoress!
    We’ll all find out in 3 years or so.

  • http://badhairblog.blogspot.com Fausta

    Thank you Anchoress!
    We’ll all find out in 3 years or so.

  • Mir

    Wanda, I suspect, human nature being what it is, there will always be situations that are current where one group thinks of the other as “not pure” or “not fully up to standards”. Whether it’s one group of Muslims who thinks the others are apostates and anyone who isn’t Muslim can be destroyed. It can be the new sense of Nationalism cropping up in various places as a response to ethnic immigrants. It can be Hutus slaughtering Tutsis. It can be Hindus slaughtering Christians who want to convert dalits. It can be previously entrenched poltical powers trying to destroy new political powers.

    There will always be, in some way, a fight of the old guard (purebloods) against the new (them mudbloods).So, while it can harken back to mean old Adolph, it can just as well play out as a metaphor for changing times and how no one likes to lose power to a new generation.

    Mir

  • Mir

    Wanda, I suspect, human nature being what it is, there will always be situations that are current where one group thinks of the other as “not pure” or “not fully up to standards”. Whether it’s one group of Muslims who thinks the others are apostates and anyone who isn’t Muslim can be destroyed. It can be the new sense of Nationalism cropping up in various places as a response to ethnic immigrants. It can be Hutus slaughtering Tutsis. It can be Hindus slaughtering Christians who want to convert dalits. It can be previously entrenched poltical powers trying to destroy new political powers.

    There will always be, in some way, a fight of the old guard (purebloods) against the new (them mudbloods).So, while it can harken back to mean old Adolph, it can just as well play out as a metaphor for changing times and how no one likes to lose power to a new generation.

    Mir

  • Mir

    As per Harry’s temper tantrums: Yeah, I can see where it was supposed to be annoying, even as it was supposed to be realistic. How many teens, put in the situations Harry has been put in, would be sweet- or even-tempered. I’d have been yellling at everyone, too.

    Mir

  • Mir

    As per Harry’s temper tantrums: Yeah, I can see where it was supposed to be annoying, even as it was supposed to be realistic. How many teens, put in the situations Harry has been put in, would be sweet- or even-tempered. I’d have been yellling at everyone, too.

    Mir

  • http://www.marchhareshouse.blogspot.net March Hare

    Dear A,

    I am so glad you waited a week to comment! :)

    Okay… so my theories (for what they are worth!):

    1.) I knew Hermione and Ron would get together.

    2.) I wasn’t surprised that Ginny and Harry did, either. I’m also not surprised that Harry told Ginny they couldn’t continue. After all, that’s why Superman never had a girlfriend and Spiderman/Peter Parker told Mary Jane the same thing. You can’t save the world and worry about your love.

    3.) I was not surprised that Dumbledore died in the book. I was rather expecting it. After all, like Obi-Wan, the master has to die to allow the young wizard/Jedi to meet his destiny.

    4.) I was surprised that Snape was the one to kill Dumbledore. I took his outburst that Hagrid overheard to be his protest to Dumbledore that he (Snape) couldn’t kill Dumbledore. I thought the look of rage on Snape’s face was his anger at having to do a deed he clearly didn’t want to do.

    5.) I agree that Dumbledore knew he was dying. Something was going on when his hand, injured retrieving the first Horcrux, didn’t heal.

    6.) Harry as the sixth (or seventh) Horcrux is an interesting idea. I don’t think he is, though. I do think that the final battle will take a lot out of Harry emotionally and probably magically. JKR has stated Book 7 will be the last and the only way her fans will let her get away with that is if a.) Harry dies or b.) Harry becomes a Muggle.

    7.) I agree that RAB is Regellus Black, Sirius’s brother. Otherwise, there is no purpose to having Harry inherit Grimauld Place or for the scene where Mundungus steals articles from the house. (I fully subscribe to the theory that if there is a gun in the first act, it has to go off in the third. So, if JKR introduces this bit in Book 6, it has significance in Book 7.)

    8.) Snape kills Bellatrix. Harry kills Voldemort.

    9.) We haven’t seen the last of Fleur and Bill. Or Tonks and Lupin. Or Fawkes, the phoenix. Harry’s wand and Voldemort’s each contain a feather of Fawkes as their core. And Fawkes also rescued Harry in Chamber of Secrets because Harry defended Dumbledore’s name. Harry has already told the new Minister of Magic that he is Dumbledore’s man. And phoenix tears have tremendous healing powers. (Which is why I don’t think Harry will die.)

    What I still don’t know:

    1.) The importance of Lily Potter’s skill with Potions.

    2.) Why it’s important that Harry have “his mother’s eyes.” It’s mentioned several times throughout the books and even JKR has alluded to its importance.

    3.) If Hermione and Ron return to Hogwarts. I think Hermione will, if only to take advantage of the library for research.

    4.) What Harry will find at Godric’s Hollow. The theory that Harry is Gryffindor’s heir is an intriguing one. But the Sorting Hat had a difficult time deciding whether to put Harry into Gryffindor or Slytherin. Is that because of Voldemort’s influence?

    BTW, MuggleNet has an a three-part interview with JKR up on the site. The MuggleNet and Leaky Cauldron site master got to spend two hours with JKR the weekend the HBP was released. ~Very~ interesting stuff from the mouth of the One Who Really Knows!

  • http://www.marchhareshouse.blogspot.net March Hare

    Dear A,

    I am so glad you waited a week to comment! :)

    Okay… so my theories (for what they are worth!):

    1.) I knew Hermione and Ron would get together.

    2.) I wasn’t surprised that Ginny and Harry did, either. I’m also not surprised that Harry told Ginny they couldn’t continue. After all, that’s why Superman never had a girlfriend and Spiderman/Peter Parker told Mary Jane the same thing. You can’t save the world and worry about your love.

    3.) I was not surprised that Dumbledore died in the book. I was rather expecting it. After all, like Obi-Wan, the master has to die to allow the young wizard/Jedi to meet his destiny.

    4.) I was surprised that Snape was the one to kill Dumbledore. I took his outburst that Hagrid overheard to be his protest to Dumbledore that he (Snape) couldn’t kill Dumbledore. I thought the look of rage on Snape’s face was his anger at having to do a deed he clearly didn’t want to do.

    5.) I agree that Dumbledore knew he was dying. Something was going on when his hand, injured retrieving the first Horcrux, didn’t heal.

    6.) Harry as the sixth (or seventh) Horcrux is an interesting idea. I don’t think he is, though. I do think that the final battle will take a lot out of Harry emotionally and probably magically. JKR has stated Book 7 will be the last and the only way her fans will let her get away with that is if a.) Harry dies or b.) Harry becomes a Muggle.

    7.) I agree that RAB is Regellus Black, Sirius’s brother. Otherwise, there is no purpose to having Harry inherit Grimauld Place or for the scene where Mundungus steals articles from the house. (I fully subscribe to the theory that if there is a gun in the first act, it has to go off in the third. So, if JKR introduces this bit in Book 6, it has significance in Book 7.)

    8.) Snape kills Bellatrix. Harry kills Voldemort.

    9.) We haven’t seen the last of Fleur and Bill. Or Tonks and Lupin. Or Fawkes, the phoenix. Harry’s wand and Voldemort’s each contain a feather of Fawkes as their core. And Fawkes also rescued Harry in Chamber of Secrets because Harry defended Dumbledore’s name. Harry has already told the new Minister of Magic that he is Dumbledore’s man. And phoenix tears have tremendous healing powers. (Which is why I don’t think Harry will die.)

    What I still don’t know:

    1.) The importance of Lily Potter’s skill with Potions.

    2.) Why it’s important that Harry have “his mother’s eyes.” It’s mentioned several times throughout the books and even JKR has alluded to its importance.

    3.) If Hermione and Ron return to Hogwarts. I think Hermione will, if only to take advantage of the library for research.

    4.) What Harry will find at Godric’s Hollow. The theory that Harry is Gryffindor’s heir is an intriguing one. But the Sorting Hat had a difficult time deciding whether to put Harry into Gryffindor or Slytherin. Is that because of Voldemort’s influence?

    BTW, MuggleNet has an a three-part interview with JKR up on the site. The MuggleNet and Leaky Cauldron site master got to spend two hours with JKR the weekend the HBP was released. ~Very~ interesting stuff from the mouth of the One Who Really Knows!

  • JMC

    I fully agree with you about the Potter books. Some years ago, someone put out an article—In Envoy magazine, no less—that stated, among other things, that the bit about the unicorn blood was ANTI-Eucharistic! How could anyone be so dense? I found it the clearest Eucharistic allegory I’ve ever seen.

    My other favorite from that article was the thing about Nicholas Flamel. The writer of the article pointed out that his very age was a Satanic symbol. He was 665 years old at the time the Philosopher’s Stone was destroyed; since he had enough elixir to last him a year, he would die at the age of 666. Oooooooo! *Sarcastic shudder* I remember writing to Envoy about that one; Nicholas Flamel was a REAL PERSON! He was an alchemist who lived in the 14th century; had he still been alive at the time the first book was written, he would, indeed, have been 665 years old.

    I’ve never read Granger’s books, but I didn’t need to. Tolkein insisted none of his writings were intended to be allegorical, but, as he was a devout Catholic, I daresay it was unavoidable that some of the symbolism would spill over. (It’s been pointed out that lembas was Eucharistic.) In the same manner, intentional or otherwise, Rowling has loaded her books with “Christian-isms,” to coin a term.

    Satanic, my [donkey]! ;D

  • JMC

    I fully agree with you about the Potter books. Some years ago, someone put out an article—In Envoy magazine, no less—that stated, among other things, that the bit about the unicorn blood was ANTI-Eucharistic! How could anyone be so dense? I found it the clearest Eucharistic allegory I’ve ever seen.

    My other favorite from that article was the thing about Nicholas Flamel. The writer of the article pointed out that his very age was a Satanic symbol. He was 665 years old at the time the Philosopher’s Stone was destroyed; since he had enough elixir to last him a year, he would die at the age of 666. Oooooooo! *Sarcastic shudder* I remember writing to Envoy about that one; Nicholas Flamel was a REAL PERSON! He was an alchemist who lived in the 14th century; had he still been alive at the time the first book was written, he would, indeed, have been 665 years old.

    I’ve never read Granger’s books, but I didn’t need to. Tolkein insisted none of his writings were intended to be allegorical, but, as he was a devout Catholic, I daresay it was unavoidable that some of the symbolism would spill over. (It’s been pointed out that lembas was Eucharistic.) In the same manner, intentional or otherwise, Rowling has loaded her books with “Christian-isms,” to coin a term.

    Satanic, my [donkey]! ;D


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X