Deathly Hallows predictions - possible spoliers (Read 601 times)

I don't really follow Pokemon.

Your thoughts?

1. Dumbledore is dead, but has a horcrux. The act of creating a horcrux in and of itself is not evil, rather it is the killing that is required. When you kill, your soul is ripped. We learn in book 1 that he “defeated” the dark wizard Grindewald in 1945. We do not hear about Grindewald in Azkeban, so he likely killed him. You can take your ripped soul and place it in a horcrux. Fawkes is the keeper of his horcrux and this is why he is always around and why he flies away crying at the end of book 6. Dumbledore may return in book 7. This would also explain Dumbledore’s “look of triumph” after the triwizard tournament when he learned that Voldy had returned, information confirming that horcruxes work.

solid, have seen nothing refuting any of this-- though i hadn't thought of dumbledore having a horcrux before reading this. my feeling is that he is in fact dead and will not return in the corporeal sense that voldemort has, for a couple of reasons: dumbledore doesn't have much beef with death-- he knows that there are ways in which the dead can still help and inspire living wizards. also, i think he has tremendous faith (paired with a paternal sort of concern) in harry and his maturing powers-- dumbledore has always seemed to be the sort of mentor who would eventually allow his apprentice to step up, rather than to insist that he himself is the only one who can defeat their opponent. it's really voldemort who fears and loathes the idea of bodily impermanence-- also, V does not believe that anyone can fill his shoes, so to speak-- he has no apprentice, has no desire for one-- so V. would be more likely to attempt to contradict death via horcruxes and whatever other means necessary. but none of this actually refutes your theory, so i dunno. something that i think could work in your theory's favor is that Rowling has so far thoroughly embraced classical epic form, in that rites of passage must occur as if the son's father is dead... as if. ie., in odysseus' absence, telemachus both fears him dead but hopes he is not, and in the meantime must go out and fight to preserve his father's property, title and wife (his mother). he must fight a man's battles to become a man-- although in many cases the son supplants or replaces the father altogether (zeus v kronos, etc), it is *not* always the case (as in the odyssey). clearly, dumbledore is a mentor rather than harry's actual pa, but i think the paternal relationship works. Rowling could be pulling an Odysseus w/ dumbledore by having him become absent, feared for dead, only to return later... this seems too neat, though, too happy. i guess we'll see.

2. Yeah yeah, Harry’s scar is a horcrux. That is an old one, is consistent with the prophesy, and is pretty cool. It also explains the connection between the two.

agreed.

3. RAB is Regulus Black, who we know was close to Voldy, and then turned away and vanished. The horcrux in Slytherin’s locket, which was replaced in the cave by a throwaway locket with a note, is the same one that we saw in book 5. Likely, Kreature has stowed the locket with his stash of Black family valuables.

agreed.

4. Dumbledore had been to the cave containing the locket before. The locket was hidden under a potion. That suggests to me that he originally went there with somebody who knows a thing or two about potions. This is why Dumbledore trusts Snape; Snape likely helped Dumbledore the first time they went into the cave to destroy something of Voldy’s. The entire description around Dumbledore’s death was Snape killing him in front of Harry and Malfoy (witnesses) so that Voldy would think Snape was on his side AND that Dumbledore was out of the way. Snape’s look of hatred was because he did not want to kill.

this is how i was feeling about these points last summer. more recently, i've started to wonder if the whole "is he with dumbledore/is he with voldemort" thing is another red herring-- perhaps... snape is on his own side, only? i think everyone knows the arguments regarding why he might be on the side of harry and dumbledore, and i think everyone also knows the arguments regarding why he might still be a deatheater. but increasingly, i'm wondering if he's been playing dumbledore, harry, voldemort and the death-eaters all against each other. his timing is impeccable, always, and he always manages to be such a slippery fish in all this. he seems to play with the good guys as easily has he seems to play with the bad guys and has been involved in the undoing of multiple characters on both sides without seeming to have his own position with either group compromised. there is definitely something slick about his ability to finesse the sides, here-- perhaps it's to do with the fact that he can slip between good actions and evil actions, where dumbledore can only do good and voldemort can only do evil. also, while i believe that pretty much ANYthing can happen (suspense! oh man), it wouldn't at all surprise me if voldemort himself is a red herring. yes, he is an antagonist with whom harry will have a gigantic and dramatic and gripping battle... but then... i kinda feel like harry's going to have to turn around and battle Snape right after, and that THAT battle is going to be even more of a doozy b/c snape is so damn clever, so slippery. plus, dude's sort of a loner... while i would love for rowling to spin a tale about how the loner can turn out to be a great team-player and such happy junk and so on to make the tale a happy one for school children to read, i think the time for those happy character developments has passed. Shit has turned grim. I think the loner aspect of his character is simply support for the fact that he does not carry allegiances.

5. Sirius was not killed by Bellatrix’s curse (which in the book was not even avara kadavara, unlike the flick) but rather crossed the veil which likely separates life from death. Even in the movie, he seemed to float away rather than drop dead like Cedric did. He is now in the after-life or something like that. We will hear from him again, perhaps through the two-way mirror he gave Harry.

interesting, and i like the idea. i think this goes w/ the idea, too, that death and disembodiment are not the worst things that could happen, which i think is something dumbledore believes.

6. Who knows who will die, but Hagrid will be among em. Just sayin.

poor hagrid is totally gonna eat it. i'm fairly sure at least one of either ron or hermione will eat it, too-- rowling has said that "two characters [she] had intended to keep alive do die" b/c "this is pure evil we're dealing with... there's a price to pay." (paraphrase-- it was an interview i heard while driving). she's also referred to the novel as a "bloodbath" and suggested that harry's story ends in a sort of permanent way (when asked whether she may do anything w/ Harry in the future, she responded, "well... i think his story comes to a fairly clear end in this book. but i might and probably will continue to put out encyclopedias and the like and share harry's world that way" -- again, paraphrase). i wonder if this means he will die, or if he will somehow become undone as a wizard-- damaged to the point of becoming incapable of magic, or something.

What is the significance of the fact that Harry has Lilly's eyes?

Very very interesting about Griffindor's eyes. I did not catch that. Where is that detail? Very interesting indeed. Harry sacrificing his life is exactly what his mother did and I agree it is consistent with his character. JK has implied that there will be no more need for sequels, which may imply that Harry will bite it. Interesting. Maybe "neither can live" means that they both must die.

Cool site. I have not gotten the cards. We will soon see if I should have

No, but it seems spoiler-rich...I think I will read it next week...