Harry Potter
okay. i reread the whole damn thing. all six books.

i'm firmly convinced that Regulus Black took slytherin's locket, the real horcrux.

and i've decided that, although there's evidence supporting both sides of the argument, i would say snape is evil and dumbledore is definitely dead. but really there's no conclusive evidence. and my reasoning is from the perspective of the author.

she (through dumbledore) has said that there are worse things than death, death is nothing to be afraid of, etc. so, really dumbledore's death wouldn't be devastating or tragic. and just the things he does leading up to the incident. i don't think he KNEW what exactly was happening, which clashes with his characteristic omniscience, but he wouldn't lie to harry. he has proven in the past to withhold certain things from harry until such time as harry is ready to hear them, but he's never actually lied to harry, or put on an act like that. and i don't see how it would be beneficial in this instance for him to do so.

and as far as snape goes, he's always been controversial. voldemort and dumbledore are both extremely powerful, and so snape could be lying to one just as likely as to the other. and i suspect that it's in his nature to use people to go places in the world, and he could obviously go farther with voldemort than with dumbledore. and dumbledore has also admitted in the past to making mistakes of judgement, and why would snape be any exception. this isn't verbatim, but he says "being rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes seem to be proportionally huger." snape was just a huge mistake. and there are the magical implications that he died. his spell over harry being instantly broken. his picture in the headmistress's office.

they didn't turn his hat inside out, or break his wand. i have no answer to those arguments. and it may be that fawkes regenerated him or whatever. but it really just seems against rowling's style. i mean. sirius is dead. harry's parents are dead. and yet, they've reappeared in some ways for harry, but never by coming back to life.

i'm sure there are surprises in book 7. surprises up the wazoo. because that's totally her style. i'm sure there's something up with aunt petunia. that may come into play when he goes back to privet drive. and he's going back to Godric's hollow. and he's going back to grimmauld place for sure: he has to retrieve slytherin's locket, once he realizes where it is. and the wedding at the burrow. the hufflepuff horcrux. the gryffindor/ravenclaw horcrux. then the snake and voldemort himself. marvolo's ring was in the gaunt shack. the locket was at the cave. there's gotta be something in little hangleton at the riddle house, i'm sure. surely not at the orphanage? maybe. i don't know. borgin & burke's? nah. there's gotta be more to the story. have to go back to the facts again. write them down.

but i'm sure dumbledore's dead dead dead. and i am equally sure that he hasn't left harry alone. maybe unprotected, yes, but certainly not unaided. there's still aberforth. and maybe slughorn and everyone in the order/hogwarts. yeah! the order! they're all still there. now that dumbledore's gone, they're bound to look to harry. i don't know. i'm starting to confuse myself.

she's got something up her sleeve. i know she does. in the meantime, we'll wait. there's definitely a theme about pushing the boundaries of magic, and how there's a line that sometimes gets crossed. it's gotta be a commentary on the scientific revolution.

if this doesn't have a good ending like lord of the rings did, mark my words, there'll be blood.

12 comments | p.s.