Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Book 7

Rate this topic


Rogue
 Share

Recommended Posts

What do you guys think is going to happen?

Rowlings has already stated that two of the trio will die...Who do you think it will be?

Everyone is saying that Harry is going to die, that has been the prediction of all my friends, that's what I thought but I was hoping that maybe she would throw a curve ball and Harry would come out alive, but then I read that and thought man that would suck for harry to have lost his two best friends, his mentor, his godfather and his parents, talk about bad luck :confused: !

So any speculations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Spoiler: I give away major plots points in the series here

I can't believe how much info people have gathered on the seventh book. I just checked Wikipedia's entry and I had to try not to read it because I don't want the final book spoiled, which wasn't an easy feat.

I doubt she kills two of the top three main characters. From what I read, she just said "main," and she did not say "of the three." Anyway, I dealt with his godfather fine, I soon came to understand that Dumbledore was a necessity, but I am sick of death, and as a reader I need her to justify them. I hope book seven does that.

I am a huge fan of this series, not crazy "follow it like it's real," but I basically sop up every word I can (even book five).

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry's not going to 'kick off' in book 7. The books have too much of a 'good triumphing over evil' theme for that to happen.

Also, I don't interpret the Richard and Judy statement to mean that two of the trio die. In fact, I don't interpret it to mean that two more people will die in book 7 at all:

Jo: The final chapter is hidden away, although it has now changed very sightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die ...

Judy: Two much loved ones?

Jo: Well, you know. A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil. They don't target the extras do they? They go for the main characters, or I do.

Since she wrote the last chapter years and years ago, what she's saying here is merely that two central characters die in her revision who didn't die in the original, and one who did die in the original lives in the revision. As far as I can tell, Dumbledore would qualify as one of those two. So could Sirius. I don't consider either of them 'extras,' and I'm sure JKR doesn't either.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry's not going to 'kick off' in book 7. The books have too much of a 'good triumphing over evil' theme for that to happen.

Also, I don't interpret the Richard and Judy statement to mean that two of the trio die. In fact, I don't interpret it to mean that two more people will die in book 7 at all:

Since she wrote the last chapter years and years ago, what she's saying here is merely that two central characters die in her revision who didn't die in the original, and one who did die in the original lives in the revision.

-Q

Tis' true what I read was just a quote by Rowlings, so maybe it was out of context. I certainly hope your right, I am fond of everyone in the trio ( as I was of Sirius) and I don't care to see any of them die

Edited by Rogue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are even intimations that Sirius might make some sort of reappearence, all gleaned from things JK has let slip in interviews and on her website. The Wikipedia entry on Book 7 does a decent job of summarizing all the clues so far, and contains links to the original sources. Also, Mugglenet is usually considered the most authoritative source of analysis (short of the books themselves, of course). There really aren't any true spoilers out there - it's all just speculation, and any definitive information you come across should be viewed as very, very suspect. There was a rumor that The Order of the Phoenix was to be dedicated to Ayn Rand before it came out, and it came from relatively credible analyst stources, but turned out false in the end anyway. So I think it's pretty hard to spoil the book by reading what's out there.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I think Rowling originally intended for Harry to die at the end, because he, or his scar, is a Horcrux. Otherwise, why the big fuss from the beginning about an odd-shaped scar on his forehead? It believe Harry is the character that she gave a reprieve to, because, just as with Sir Conan Doyle who killed off Sherlock, he received so much hate mail and anguish from his fans that he resurrected his hero in a subsequent book. (Phooey, I say, the masses have commercial influence over true literary expression).

As for Snape, one of the most fascinating characters in this series - There is a theory going around that mirrors 'Severus', a character prominent in 'The Prince'. This diabolical, cunning, conniving 'Severus', a fictional creation of none other than Niccolai Machiavelli, schemes to kill both his rivals by tricking each into thinking he is on one's side, fighting the other rival, and taking each one's life when their guard is down. Thus, Machiavelli's 'Severus' comes out on top, with no rivals to stop him anymore.

What Harry Potter reader would doubt that after Dumbledore and Voldemort, the next most powerful wizard is Snape? Snape not in allegiance with Dumbledore, or with Voldy. He is strictly out for himself. With D and V out of the picture, Severus Snape rules supreme. This does justice to Machiavelli's original Severus character. HOWEVER, Snape is going to need Harry's help in bringing down Voldy. This is where Book 7's plot will twist and turn and keep us at the edge of our seats. Harry will feel that Snape is helping him, but once he defeats Voldy - watch out Harry!

Edited by diverbetty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The climax of book 7:

And so Harry and Voldemort were in a Mexican standoff with their wands

pointed at each other. Then Harry walked forward until he was just

inches from Voldemort's face and with an air of quiet confidence

said:

"I know what you're thinking - did he drink Felix Felicis 25 hours

ago or only 24? Well, to tell you the truth, in all the excitement

I've kind of lost track myself, but as it's the Magnum curse I'm

aiming to perform, the most powerful in the world and would blow your

head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question - do I feel

lucky ? Well, do you punk?"

John K Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

diverbetty on Sep 15 2006 Wrote:

> It believe Harry is the character that she gave a reprieve to

She recently said 2 characters she originally thought would live would instead die and one who had been destined for death will live, so she actually increased the body count by one. I certainly think and hope Harry will die at the end because it would make a better story. And his death will create a storm of controversy, there will be riots in the streets. How could any author resist creating something as magnificent as that?

> As for Snape, one of the most fascinating characters in this series

> There is a theory going around that mirrors 'Severus', a character

> prominent in 'The Prince'. This diabolical, cunning, conniving

> 'Severus', a fictional creation of none other than Niccolai Machiavelli,

> schemes to kill both his rivals by tricking each into thinking he is on

> one's side, fighting the other rival, and taking each one's life when

> their guard is down. Thus, Machiavelli's 'Severus' comes out on top,

> with no rivals to stop him anymore.

I had thought the very same thing but then I heard something Salman Rushdie a man I very much respect said to Rowling that made me rethink my opinion. Rushdie told her that he thought Snape was good and Rowling responded:

"Your opinion, I would say, is right”

How on Earth can she make a good Snape who nevertheless killed Dumbledore?

I'll tell you one thing, the reason for killing Dumbledore would have to be HUGE, tiny little reasons like helping him in his undercover work just won't do the trick.

I'm just thinking out loud here but what if not Harry but Dumbledore had inadvertently become a Horcrux, perhaps when he got that withered arm? That would mean Voldemort could never die as long as Dumbledore lived. I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that suicide (self murder) would only strengthen a Horcrux, he must be killed by someone in a completely selfless act. Snape had nothing to gain personally by killing Dumbledore, he did it because Dumbledore asked him to and because he knew it was the right thing to do. Snape knew that killing Dumbledore would eventually bring about his own death and he didn't even have posthumous glory to look forward to. Snape did a good and heroic thing, but NOBODY would ever know about it, not even Harry; a thousand years from now people would still use the word "snape" as a synonym for "traitor". Snape understood all this, he knew the price he must pay for doing the right thing but he did it anyway.

Yes that is not what an Objectivists would do, but nevertheless it might make a pretty good story.

John K Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a pretty cavalier way of treating your own horcrux - to try and destroy it three times directly and twice by proxy as Voldy has done with Harry. While Voldy's been cavalier with his horcruxes in the past (leaving the Gaunt family ring in the dilapidated Gaunt family home; leaving the diary with Lucius Malfoy), he's always done something to protect them (the unplottable charm on the Gaunt house; telling Malfoy to keep the diary safe). And he went to extraordinary (though apparently insufficient) lengths to protect the locket. If Harry's death means the destruction of a horcrux, that's a pretty big incentive for Voldy not to kill him while stuck to the back of Quirrell's head.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
[cut]

Rushdie told her that he thought Snape was good and Rowling responded:

"Your opinion, I would say, is right”[cut]

I've read that interview. The direct quote is:

Salman and Milan Rushdie: We cannot, or don't want to believe this (crowd laughs). Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy (crowd applauds). From which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead and that the death is a ruse cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry and Voldemort come face to face (crowd laughs). Harry may have more allies than he or Voldemort suspects. So, is Snape good or bad? (crowd laughs, applauds and screams and Jo chuckles). In our opinion, everything follows from it.

JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say is ... right. But I see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore is definitely ... dead (crowd gasps). And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm, I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now (crowd laughs). But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief (crowd laughs), and I'm just helping you get past denial. So, I can't remember what's next. It may be anger so I think we should stop it here. Thank you (crowd applauds).

Source: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0...tyreading2.html

(italics and bold mine)

So, their "opinion" is that everything follows from Snape's loyalties, which isn't all that revolutionary a statement. There's a lot hinging on Snape's loyalties, from the night in Godric's Hollow onward. We don't know enough about that generation.

Also something to think about regarding Snape: Dumbledore explained to Fudge in book 5 that as long as someone is against Voldemort, they are on his side. Snape doesn't necessarily have to be loyal to the Order for Dumbledore to trust that he is "on their side." He was never very explicit about that, and while I'm still unsure about Snape's motives, I don't think he's Riddle's lackey. He's seen too much bullying in his life to voluntarily let one take over the world. Riddle is like James, Sirius, and Tobias rolled into one package and intensified a hundred times over. Why would he follow him?

I think it's a pretty cavalier way of treating your own horcrux - to try and destroy it three times directly and twice by proxy as Voldy has done with Harry.[cut]
As the theory goes, Riddle didn't know that Harry was a Horcrux until he possessed him at the Ministry in book 5. That's why he told the Death Eater's to leave him alone in book 6. Take that for what you will. Edited by non-contradictor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also something to think about regarding Snape: Dumbledore explained to Fudge in book 5 that as long as someone is against Voldemort, they are on his side. Snape doesn't necessarily have to be loyal to the Order for Dumbledore to trust that he is "on their side." He was never very explicit about that, and while I'm still unsure about Snape's motives, I don't think he's Riddle's lackey. He's seen too much bullying in his life to voluntarily let one take over the world. Riddle is like James, Sirius, and Tobias rolled into one package and intensified a hundred times over. Why would he follow him?

Who is Tobias?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Tobias?

Tobias Snape = Severus's father. Snape's mother was Eileen Prince.

Voldemort told the Death Eaters to leave Harry alone? I don't recall that.

We hear something like that at the end of the chapter called "Flight of the Prince." Snape tells the other Death Eaters to leave Harry alone because of "orders," which I take to mean Voldemort has ordered them not to kill Harry. I'd give the exact quote, but I don't have my book at school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tobias Snape = Severus's father. Snape's mother was Eileen Prince.

We hear something like that at the end of the chapter called "Flight of the Prince." Snape tells the other Death Eaters to leave Harry alone because of "orders," which I take to mean Voldemort has ordered them not to kill Harry. I'd give the exact quote, but I don't have my book at school.

If you accept the idea the Snape is actually a good guy, this makes sense. Also, Voldemort wants to be the one to kill Harry. If you'll remember, he issued a similar order at the end of GoF...and that was before he was allegedly aware that Harry had been made into a horcrux.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still undecided on whether or not Harry is a horcrux. My biggest argument against it is that Dumbledore would have noticed, and I really don't want to add another strike against him right now. (I'll be angry if he knew and just didn't say anything.) But I digress...

Snape's line is just one part of it. Yes, Voldemort wants to be the one to kill Harry, but why didn't Voldemort have his Death Eaters capture Harry? Wouldn't it have been just as easy to stun him and drag him away? Why didn't Voldemort attempt to kill Harry at all in book 6? It's a little odd to have a book where no one tries to kill Harry.

I think it's far more likely that Voldemort is merely planning something sinister for book 7, but I'm playing Devil's advocate a bit here. In any case, we have one more thing that comes to a question of Snape's loyalties. If he's really evil, then he's either stupid (and didn't realize that he could just kidnap Harry), or he was under orders to not only not kill Harry, but to leave him alone. If he's good (or at least not a true Death Eater "The world is not split into good people and Death Eaters...") then he was probably under orders not to kill Harry and merely took it a bit farther by protecting him from the other Death Eaters.

I really would like to read that passage again before I go into this any farther, because the context is important, as is Snape's exact wording. Anyone happen to have a copy handy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to speculate, I'd point to an interesting thing that was revealed just in this last book: Lily Potter was a genius at potions . . . just like Harry has been, recently.

It's been stated all along that Snape really hated James Potter, as though James were the only important one in that family, but I kind of have to wonder about what Snape's relationship with Lily. Snape would never have been upset that James was killed, but I suspect he may have been close (in some fashion) to Lily and regret that she was killed.

It's just a theory of mine, but it would help explain why he's acting the way he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[cut]

It's been stated all along that Snape really hated James Potter, as though James were the only important one in that family, but I kind of have to wonder about what Snape's relationship with Lily. Snape would never have been upset that James was killed, but I suspect he may have been close (in some fashion) to Lily and regret that she was killed.[cut]

I agree. I think that they were probably potions partners, or that Severus had an unrequited crush on Lily, or both. It would explain why Dumbledore trusted him; he always did believe in the power of love. Perhaps if Harry looked more like Lily and less like James' he'd have had an easier time. There's something important with Lily though, between her eyes that keep getting mentioned, her affinity for potions and charms, and the mystery surrounding what she (and James, for that matter) did after they left school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snape could have admired Lily's ability, but I doubt it went any further than that. I think admiering someone's ability is even stronger than a "crush" anyway.

Snape could have kidnapped Harry, I doubt he was stupid. this is just more proof that he is actually good. In fact, I would not be surprised in the least if Snape will turn out to be the hero that no one knew about this whole time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember back after OOP came out making the prediction that Book 7 would be titled something like Harry Potter and the Bloody Excruciating Death and that the 7th film would have to be R-rated. Turns out I got one word very, very close...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I thought of something I'd like to mention in here, as I was looking over the chapter on Horcruxes...I'm in Harry Potter mode today, and don't know why.

I was thinking about the "Harry is a Horcrux theory," then I remembered how in GoF it said that Dumbledore "had a gleam of triumph" in his eyes when he learned that Voldemort had been resurrected using Harry's blood. Supposedly, that's one of the things that will be explained in the final book.

It has occurred to me that the "gleam of triumph" was because Dumbledore knew that Harry was a Horcrux, but that his blood being used in Voldemort's resurrection has somehow ensured that Harry's life will be preserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...