|
Post by KoNeko on Aug 27, 2005 20:52:13 GMT -5
Alderad, which character said Oho besides Dumbledore? I keep thinking Moody or Slugworth but I don't think that's right...
Yeah, I think it's kinda suss to keep a big pot of Polyjuice potion around where anyone could help themselves to it. But if that's the case, wasn't there also a big pot of felix around? If that's the case, couldn't Dumbledore have helped himself to that?
|
|
AlderadDangarian
1st Year
All things are divisible by, multiples of, or are somehow directly or indirectly related to the #5!
Posts: 65
|
Post by AlderadDangarian on Aug 28, 2005 19:29:09 GMT -5
Good point about the felix--my only response is too much of a good thing.......
Slughorn said it alot. I thought that perhaps they swapped roles--that is why Dumbledore's memory was in a vial.
|
|
|
Post by Leon on Aug 28, 2005 22:25:53 GMT -5
If you ask me Dumbledore really did die. If you think about it'll make sense. I think part of the whole thing is that every book a character closer to Harry dies. If you think about it, Serious wasn't that close to him, they never had time to get too close. At any rate, I think it's this buildup of haterid that Harry will start having as everytime someone closer to him dies that will ultimitely lead to Voldemort's downfall. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it seems that every year someone closer to harry gets killed by voldemort and his cohorts: fourth book it was someone who Harry simply knew, fifth it was someone that Harry cared about and had great potential to be very close to harry, and then in this one it was the father figure himself. To me it seems to make sense that Dumbledore actually did die, because it makes sense in the plot build up. If you ask me, Snape is a Death Eater, but he's not on voldemort's side. Snape seems like one of those people who has plans of his own. He works for whoever it is wise to work for to achieve his ultimate goal. nothing in the book points to this, but I don't think Snape's on either side. He seems to have his own goals, a third party of sorts. He just seems like one of those people who has plans of his own. he betrayed Dumbledore who put trust in him, but I have a feeling he'll betray Voldemort as well, who also puts trust in him. I got the feeling he was playing both sides because he was acting like a spy for both of them. he told the Order things that were both important and true, but on the same token he did the same for Voldemort. Maybe my imagination is running too much here.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Aug 29, 2005 15:46:15 GMT -5
Then who is going to die in the 7th book then? You know, I personally want something to happen like Ron dying or something... there's a foil for you if you ever needed one.
Hmmm, interesting theory, Alderad. I never thought about it like that, but that does explain a lot. Only thing is, there's that bit when Harry and Hagrid and Sluggy are drinking in Hagrid's hut, and Harry has to get the memory from Sluggy? How does that work then? Or did they switch back?
On another note - I don't know, I think that there is something unsavory about writing a series where you upset the status quo so close to the end.
|
|
Isbister15
Gryffindor Alumni
Mmmm...chocolate
Posts: 5,082
|
Post by Isbister15 on Sept 3, 2005 21:30:32 GMT -5
You know, I personally want something to happen like Ron dying or something... there's a foil for you if you ever needed one. *GASP* KoNeko!! How dare you say such a thing! I think that might totally ruin the series for me. Percy dying I could deal with...but not Ron. Besides, Harry's going to die in book 7. You can't get any closer to "Harry" than that.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Sept 5, 2005 19:01:22 GMT -5
See, that's why (much as I hate it), I think Ron would be a very suitable foil. Always the bumbling sidekick friend, it would be pretty powerful if Ron was somehow able to be the hero and maybe take a hit for Harry, as it were. Of all the characters, he's probably the closest non-deceased character to Harry, and the fact that the other people who died (well, Sirius and Dumblers anyway) were more of guardian, parental-like figures and Ron isn't sort of shows that these kids sort of have to grow out of that sort of parental protection role and look out for each other.
At this rate, if Percy died, I'd be like, "meh".
|
|
AlderadDangarian
1st Year
All things are divisible by, multiples of, or are somehow directly or indirectly related to the #5!
Posts: 65
|
Post by AlderadDangarian on Sept 9, 2005 18:55:19 GMT -5
Not Ron, it will be Hermoine and Ginny. Malfoy is going to kill them and then Ron will snap!
|
|
Calavera Diablos
Ravenclaw Alumni
Draws grown men wearing underpants outside their trousers
Posts: 1,547
|
Post by Calavera Diablos on Nov 22, 2005 13:21:07 GMT -5
I've discussed these topics with my friends and we seem to be rather split up on the subjects at hand. We all agree that Dumbledore is indeed, dead. One reason for believing that is J.K. herself said (not in so many words) that he isn't going to come back. All of the characters that have been parental/Guardian forces protecting Harry are dead. Without Dumbledore's death, Harry would never have been able to strike out on his own. The death of Albus is imperative to the storyline to make Harry more independent. There wouldn't be a real sense of danger in the final book if Dumbledore was still around to "make everything alright" again.
Most of my friends do believe that Snape is full blown evil. They argue that he's arrogant and embittered enough to be a double/triple/whatever agent for V-Dawg. Plus even though he had many chances to do harm to Harry, he wouldn't attempt it while being under the care of Albus. I myself am borderline on the issue, but if he really is on the wrong side, he has to die in the next book. The only way to possibly redeem him if he is good is to have him die whilst protecting Harry, naturally.
|
|