Okay, here's my spoilery disappointment: The Ginny/Harry arc rose and fell too fast. I figured those two would hook up since she first appeared, but I'm not sure there was enough time between Harry's "hey, she's an option..." moment and their first snogging. Then, when he says he has to leave, she doesn't even give a "I'll be here when you're done" or anything remotely like that. I wanted something to appease the hopeless romantic in me, you know?
Also, I want to know why, considering the history of deceptive teachers and diaries, Harry trusted the Half-Blood Prince so completely. Seriously. By this point, he should ahve known better than to completely disregard Hermione's warnings.
As far as Snape goes... I wouldn't be surprised if he's still a good guy. Dumbledore seemed to be pleading with him at the end, but pleading for what? Could it have been as Aslan/Ben Kenobi moment for the old wizard, where death was necessary? Snape declaration that Harry had to be saved for the dark lord seemed a little convenient. I'm not saying that I think he's still a good guy, but I wouldn't be surprised. Basically, I'm just gonna let J.K. drive while I enjoy the scenery in Book 7, and I love when I can look forward to a book like that.
My first thought on the ending was that now we knew the truth about Snape, and that he was working for Voldemort the whole time. But two things make me question whether it's that simple - what was the argument about between Snape and Dumbledore that Hagrid overheard? We never really found out. And what exactly was Dumbledore doing on the tower? Pleading for his life is just too far out of character for him. All indications have been that he didn't fear death. I don't know if I buy the theories that Dumbledore was pleading with Snape to kill him, but I will be disappointed if it turns out to be nothing. And why did he petrify Harry? If he knew he was going to be fighting DEs in a severly weakened state, I would think he would have wanted Harry fighting with him. So it makes me wonder if he didn't know what was going to happen already. I do believe that he's dead though.
I didn't feel like Harry-Ginny developed too fast. I think it was probably under the surface the over the past couple of years. Remember Harry spends a lot of time with the Weasleys and sees a lot of Ginny. And her character has developed quite a bit over the last 3 books. I was very happy with it. What I didn't like was the Spiderman ending. Harry has plenty of close friends who Voldemort could use to get to him. Is he going to care any less about Ginny just because they're not officially dating?
The "spiderman" ending to the Harry/Ginny dating was really my only complaint as well. My hopeless romantic side absolutely tingled during their first kiss.
As to Snape's loyalties...
First of all, I found his explanations to Bellatrix about his behavior for 5 years unconvincing. We have thousands of pages detailing Snape's consistent support of the good side, and only about 50 pages where he is on the evil side. His dislike for Harry is evident, but the detentions and deductions always seemed an ample catharsis. Reversing his character definition in the final pages of book 6 of 7 would be cheap, if in fact it is the case. That being said, to date, Rowling has made sure that all plot developments have become increasingly relevant as the series continues. Thus, Dumbledore's ironclad reason for trusting Snape (which has not yet been revealed), should play a part in the final act.
Finally, if the intensity of the scenes where Harry retrieves the final Horcruxes contain half the intensity of the Horcrux scene from this book, they alone will make book 7 worth the read. That is a long way of saying, "I really like the scene in the sea cave!"
Hmm, looks like I may be the only one that isn't terribly happy with Harry and Ginny getting together. I guess it's okay, but frankly, I was kind of hoping he'd end up with Luna. Definitely happy though that she's still around and involved at least, because I like her. That said, I thought that Harry and Ginny were pretty well handled for the most part. First kiss was fantastic. Agreed though that the Spiderman ending was not the best part of the book.
Agreed also that it's a little surprising that Harry was so inclined to be trusting of the Half-Blood Prince, but frankly, Harry is more than a little arrogant. So I believe it. Even after Ginny's admonition that following mysterious instructions in a book can be a bad idea, Harry basically, in his heart, believes that he han handle anything that comes at him. Therefore, he figures, even if the Half-Blood Prince turns out to be bad somehow, he'll still be able to take care of things, and if it helps him with potions in the meantime, then what's the problem? It's a little irresponsible, but that's hardly out of character for Harry. He has many virtues of course, but always thinking things through and doing the responsible thing is not one of them. Even more than that, he's practically built his whole self-identity on his ability to fight and defeat this sort of thing. If he's not taking dangerous risks and overcoming them, then who is he? It's almost like a game for him. (That's all subtext of course.)
That said, I loved (if that's the word) the scene where he uses the hex on Malfoy and it cuts him open! Not that I liked that happening, but just the dramatic impact of the scene. My jaw dropped. It was an excellent illustration of why following those mysterious commands was such a mistake.
I also really liked the discovery of Snape as the HBP, because up to that point, we're thinking: "Gee, okay, we see where the HBP plays into the story, but it doesn't seem important enough to merit the subtitle of the whole book."
But then, of course, when we discover that it is Snape all along, the subtitle of the book effectively becomes: Harry Potter and Snape's School-Age Frustrations, which is, of course, extremely relevant.
Now, onto the end and the big betrayal (or was it? of Snape killing Dumbledore). Of course, there are a million possible interpretations of what happened, but looked at on a pure surface level, it would seem that Snape really was bad after all and finally revealed that.
If that turns out to really be the case, then that's very disappointing, because one of the things that made Snape such a great character was the simple concept that he could actually be a jerk and a "good-guy" at the same time. Therefore, his apparent betrayal sweeps all that away, betraying not only Dumbledore and Harry, but the reader as well.
(I want to note here that it is some truly remarkable story-telling on Rowling's part that people are so insistent on making all these excuses for Snape and spinning all these conspiracy theories in the face of all the evidence.)
All of Snape's explanations to Bellatrix, etc. I thought they could go either way. They were well-written in that regard. To the reader, there were no obvious lies that we knew for a fact to be false, so that means we really have no way of knowing for sure whether he was telling the truth or not.
But the reason that I have hope is pretty simple. When, in the entire series, has Dumbledore ever been so fundamentally wrong about anything? The only other time he has admitted a mistake was just in not telling Harry about the prophecy sooner. As far as mistakes go, that's pretty minor compared to putting your trust and faith in a person who is actually planning to betray you.
Given that, in basically every situation, Dumbledore has always seemed to have a pretty good idea of what was going on, even if things were not entirely under his control.
As a result, if the simple explanation, "Snape betrayed them," is true, that is a betrayal not only of what we had come to believe about Snape, but also of Dumbledore. We've known all along that Dumbeldore trusted Snape, but we didn't really know why.
Do you really think that she's going to finish the series without answering that question? Do you really think that reason is going to turn out to be a poor one?
I don't.
So, where does that leave us? Well, I don't think there's really any question that there was more going on up there in that tower than we know about now. The whole book reads like "Harry Potter Finale: Part 1". Another good comparison is "Empire Strikes Back". With every other book so far, even if things were left unresolved at the end, there was still a definite sense of closure regarding whatever the primary conflict of that book had been. With this one, everything is still up in the air. Book 7 had better be a hell of a payoff, but I have little doubt that it will be.
Oh, nearly forgot to add that there are a couple of possible explanations for what happened that I really hope aren't true. Heard one theory that Dumbledore WANTED Snape to kill him, and to do it right in front of Harry, because somehow that would make Harry all the more angry and eager to confront and fight Voldemort. (Thus an alternate explanation for why Dumbledore froze Harry)
I really hope that isn't true, because if so, that makes Dumbledore a real manipulative asshole. Really really hope that isn't the answer. I'd rather Snape be all bad than have that happen.
One variation though that might be okay is that Dumbledore knew that, when the time comes for Harry and Voldemort to confront one another, Snape has to be on the scene somehow. If that's the case, then it's conceivable that Dumbledore might conceivably tell Snape to do anything he has to do in order to stay close to Voldemort until then, even if it required Dumbledore's own death.
Dumbledore may not have wanted Snape to kill him precisely, but things developed to the point where that was really the only thing Snape could do without losing LV's trust. So it might have been a sort of: Dumbledore's life is less important to the cause than Snape staying close to Voldemort, so he allowed Snape to kill him as a noble self-sacrifice.
That explanation I might be okay with, but I'm going to need a convincing explanation for how Snape has been managing to fool Voldemort all this time. The simple answer that "he's good at occlumancy" is not good enough for me.
I gotta say kudos to JKR about the red herring that is Snape. He's been arch enemy number one for the entire series and we've been trained to ignore that evidence for the first four books (like Ron and Hermione). He's definately one of my favorite characters just because he IS the red herring.
The fact that he ISN'T, for all intents and purposes in this book, kinda points me to the conclusion that he really IS. She's fooled us before.
I was kinda frustrated with Harry's insistent trust of the HBP too, but then, we all made notes in our books in college. I expect Hermione's books look somewhat similar. If they're just somone's notes, why NOT use them for information? Especially when they turn out to be correct 99.9% of the time?
It's not exactly the same situation as with Ginny b/c the book wasn't writing back. I think that if the book HAD turned out like Tom Riddle's diary, then Harry would have destroyed it.
Of course, Harry's paranoia / Cassandra complex is in full swing again. You'd think they'd learn; Harry NEVER lets it rest if he thinks someone should be acting on what he knows. What I want to know is why Dumbledore didn't just say, "Thanks for the info. I'll handle it from here." Not that it would have appeased Harry much, but it would have made him shut up about it.
(Has anyone thought of hiring a psychiatrist for Hogwarts along with the new Defense against Dark Arts teacher? Harry has issues!)
Harry/Ginny? Hopeless romantic me isn't really satisfied, but then what breakup really is satisfying?
I have a lot of respect for Ginny as a person for respecting Harry as a person and his need to finish things with Voldemort. He's not saying "never," he's just saying "not now." And she doesn't say anything about "I'll wait," because that's not certain. She could fall madly in love with Victor Krum next year for all we know. She knows, and we know, that Harry has doubts that he'll come back from facing Voldemort alive.
Loved Lupin and Tonks. Nuff said.
Loved-loved Phlegm and Bill. Nuff said again.
Overall, not really surprised by much in this book, especially not the reveal of Snape as the HBP. Dumbledore's death surprised me when it actually happened, but I'd been expecting it.
Right now I'm rereading the series... read books 1 and 2 yesterday. The vanishing cabinet was broken by Peeves in book two after Filch snagged Harry for dripping mud (before the deathday party). Working on book 3 now (my favorite of the entire series so far) and will hopefully be done with the rest by friday.
In order to believe that Snape truly is bad, you must believe that he completely fooled Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix instead of Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Thus, we must believe that Dumbledore's fatal mistake is that "he believes the best in people". Thats a pretty shitty moral to the Snape subplot.
There can be many reasons why Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him. It could be that circumstances developed to the point where Snape had to kill him in order to stay close to Voldemort. Also, remember Dumbledore's ties to the phoenix, even brought to the forefront by the phoenix's lament. So you could look to death as a new beginning that might be necessary for the conclusion. Orrrrr, note that some of the ex-headmasters can speak and interact from their portraits. Perhaps it was necessary for Dumbledore to be in his portrait for the conclusion.
Point is, there are many reasons why Dumbledore could have died without it being purely Snape's betrayel. I just can't believe Rowling would spend so much time developing the relationship between Snape being a jerk, but still not being evil (similar to what was about to happen w/Malfoy) only to make him really evil anyway.
I also disagree that we are making excuses and spinning conspiracy theories in front of too much evidence to the contrary. I repeat my earlier point, the majority of the evidence (5 + books) points to Dumbledore's infallable trust of Snape. Only a small portion of the last book is devoted to showing Snape as truly evil.
Potter fans, check out this week's Entertainment Weekly. There are some good notes about the upcoming 4th movie, the status of the 5th movie, and the 7th book. (Supposedly, Rowling is putting the finishing touches on Book 7 already, so hopefully we won't have to wait 2 years again.)
I also disagree that we are making excuses and spinning conspiracy theories in front of too much evidence to the contrary.
Let me clarify that just a tad. What I mean is that the only really strong evidence we have that Snape isn't evil is Dumbledore's ironclad trust in him. I'm not saying that that isn't enough, I'm just saying it's admirable story-telling that it is enough. With a less well-written book or character, we would just believe that he'd been wrong and that would be that. In this series, she's spent six books building him up as someone who isn't likely to be wrong about something as important as this.
So I'm not saying it's wrong to spin these theories (I'm doing it too, after all,) I'm just saying it's a mark of how engaging the stories and the characters are.
Show of hands: Who thinks Harry's scar (or Harry himself) is the sixth horcrux?
Ooh, I never thought of that. I'm not sure it entirely fits with what we know about the prophecy, etc, but it sure is an interesting idea!
Also: A few new picks from the GOF movie over at Aint-it-Cool-News.
I have a question about a different subject from Book 6. If the dementors have joined Voldemort, then who is guarding Azkaban? I don't recall ever seeing anything about this in the book, but I may have missed it. If someone knows, please fill me in.
I had the same thought about Azkaban, Meitin. If they could guard Azkaban without the dementors, it seems like they should have done that all along.
I've seen many theories stating that one of the horcruxes is Harry or some other person. In one post I saw someone suggested Luna. It doesn't make sense to me. For one, we know that Voldemort really tried to kill Harry, many times. If Harry or his scar were a horcrux, Voldemort would be trying to protect him at all costs. Another thing, the two horcruxes we know of were extremely well protected. The ring shriveled Dumbledore's hand, and we saw what happened with the amulet. With this in mind, I can't imagine that Voldemort would want a horcrux to be so unprotected. Inside a person, he has very little control over its safety. I think the remaining horcruxes will be very well and deviously guarded.
As for Snape, it won't bother me if he turns out to truly be evil. His character never rang true to me. I always had a hard time with someone who's that petty and mean-spirited, yet has a noble soul. Besides, I think the true twist would be if he actualy is betraying Dumbledore. JKR has led us to believe over these first 5.9 books that Snape is a bad guy on the good side. I've never expected Snape to turn out evil. That said, I'm sure there's more to come on Snape and his motivations. IT won't surprise me if there's some explanation for what happened on the tower besides a complete betrayal.
An interesting question regarding Azkaban, though I suspect the reason we didn't really hear anything about it is because it's a fairly mundane answer: that "normal" witches and wizards are picking up the slack. Though, one can imagine that the prisoners are pretty happy to see the dementors leave.
On Horcruxes, it doesn't make any sense to me that one might be Luna. That seems like a stretch to me with no real evidence other than looking for a way to make her character more relevant to the larger conflict.
The EW story mentioned by Mike (Meitin) also has an interesting bit speculating that Harry &Co. have already encountered the real amulet in Sirius Black's house. R.A.B. could be Regulus Black, Sirius's brother, and also, in Book 5, when they were cleaning the house, they found a "heavy locket that none of them could open."
As for Harry being one of the horcruxes, Chris has a good point that it seems unlikely that LV would want one to be so unprotected, but what if Harry was meant to be the last (7th) horcrux, but then the whole process backfired? Meaning, part of LV's soul got implanted as planned, but LV's power got lost in the process. That could be related to how Harry's blood was able to restore him.
Also, one might ask, what would be better protected than an an innocent baby?
As to Azkaban, if "normal" witches and wizards could always guard it, why wouldn't they have done that all along? It seems like the risk of using the dementors in the first place, if the only advantage is that it keeps the prisoners unhappy, would not be a wise decision.
I have read several discussions about R.A.B being Regulus Black and the locket being contained in Grimmauld place. Regulus Black was a Death Eater, so he might have been privy to the knowledge of horcruxes (as R.A.B must have been). I heard one theory that perhaps Snape assisted Regulus (because we know two people are required). Assuming the potion that is drunk does not refill itself, a potion master like Snape would be able to do it. Also, Snape's assistance in retrieving the horcrux could be the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape.
I found this theory interesting, which is why I posted it here, but there are two big holes in it. First, we know the boat only allowed one wizard at a time. Snape and Regulus would have had extreme difficulty getting to the island. My personal thought is that Regulus (if in fact he is R.A.B) took Kreacher along. He could order Kreacher to keep feeding him the potion and they both would have been able to be on the boat. Second, if Dumbledore trusted Snape because he knew he had helped retrieve the horcrux, then he would have known not to go to the cave looking for it, I would assume.
I never meant that Harry was a horcrux on purpose. Dumbledore guesses that Harry's death might have been intended to make the final one in book six. Harry does have the powers Voldemort had, as well as the protection from his mother (which has now been circumvented).
I remember a vague reference to a mass breakout of Azkaban mentioned in HBP as well. There might not be any prisoners left to guard.
Then, too, the use of Azkaban might have originated in placating the Dementors, which Dumbledore says were Voldemort's allys in OoP. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) With a stable, constant food source, it would take the Dementors off the Dark side of the field and put them in a neutral position, which is probably all the Ministry of Magic could hope for from them.
As for the Regulus Black hypothesis... It makes sense (as that's the only name I've seen with those initials), but why would Regulus order Kretcher feed Regulus the potion when Regulus could order Kretcher to drink it himself, thus leaving Regulus unharmed and able to steal the locket?
Ah, so you're saying that Harry or his scar might be a horcrux unintentionaly. I could see that. Voldemort had already set up the spell to create the horcrux and killing Harry would have sealed it somewhere. For that to work, it would mean that a soul could be split even without an actual death. Or maybe it worked because the AK did actually kill one of the pieces of Voldemort's soul, the one in his own body.
There was a mass breakout fromo Azkaban in book 5. That's when the Lestranges got out. But there are prisoners there now as well. Everyone captured in the battle at the Ministry of Magic at the end of book 5 is there, including Lucius Malfoy.
Good point Lee about the Dementors. Having them guard Azkaban probably kept them from raiding the general populace, but they should have listened to Dumbledore at the end of GOF and removed them at that time.
I think Lee is right on the money regarding why the dementors were used as guards. Sort of a two-birds-one-stone sort of thing in that it kept the prisoners subdued and the dementors occupied, though if I recall, Dumbledore mentioned at some point I think that not everyone agreed with that plan even when it seemed to be working.
I also seem to recall that the mass breakout from Azkaban where the Lestranges got out was specifically related to the Dementors abandoning their posts and essentially helping them escape. Of course, that could not be confirmed at the time, because Fudge and the MoM was still insisting that it hadn't happened at all.
Now, if I remember right, LV's plan was to split his soul into seven pieces, six of which would be in horcruxes, and the seventh which would remain in his own body. Is that correct? Someone tell me if its not. But Chris raises an interesting idea, what if the part that had been intended to stay in his body got taken out? What would happen? All the pieces have to be destroyed for him to die, so I guess that wouldn't change, but what would happen to his body if there were no parts of his soul left in it? (Might it, for example, be left with no physical form?)
Still though, the idea that Harry might have part of LV's soul inside him somehow could have very scary implications given the prophecy. If, in order to kill LV, all pieces must be destroyed, how does one do that if the piece is embedded inside a person? (I'm reminded here of the fates of Sherlock Holms and Prof. Moriarty, where Holmes gave up his own life in order to take Moriarty down with him).
You've got it right, Christiana. 7 pieces of soul, 6 in horcruxes and one in his body. Oh, I forgot to mention we know of 3 horcruxes for sure - the ring, the locket and the diary. Dumbledore suspects the Hufflepuff cup and Nagini of being horcruxes also. I had forgotten about Nagini. If true, it means that Voldemort is not averse to using living beings as horcruxes.
Regarding what happened to Voldemort, I found this section -
"Well, you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one's body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged. But of course, existence in such a form..."
Slughorn's face crumpled and Harry found himself remembering words he had heard nearly two years before: "I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost...but still, I was alive." "...few would want it, Tom, very few. Death would be preferable."
So it sounds like what happened at Godric's Hollow was that the AK rebounded on Voldemort and destroyed his body, but couldn't kill his soul due to the horcruxes he had created binding him to the earth. This is what caused his ghostlike existence, until he found Quirrell wandering in the woods. So then the question is, could the destruction of his body be enough to inadvertantly create a horcrux? I hope it's not that. I don't want to see Harry as the tragic hero.
I agree with not wanting to see Harry as the tragic hero. I have always stated that I want this series to end triumphantly, with good vanquishing evil, the good guy getting the girl (or good guys getting the girls, and good girls getting the guys, etc.) and a big celebration with much eating and drinking.
I don't think we'll have to worry about it too much. I doubt JKR is setting book seven to be a tragedy. Martyrdom is vastly over-rated.
Personally, I think we all have just as much luck foreseeing the end of the series as Prof. Trelawney does of predicting what dinner will be. Educated guess based on past experience, yes; definate knowledge, no.
You guys are going the wrong way about the Snape/Dumbledore thing.
Snape had to kill Dumbledore because of Malfoy. Remember at the beginning, when Snape made the Unbreakable Vow? Well, that's the reason why Snape had to kill Dumbledore, so that he would do Malfoy's task. I'm pretty sure Dumbledore knows that Malfoy was planning to kill him and Snape probably told him about his Vow, so....if that's the case, Snape couls still be a good guy.
Also, I want to know why, considering the history of deceptive teachers and diaries, Harry trusted the Half-Blood Prince so completely. Seriously. By this point, he should ahve known better than to completely disregard Hermione's warnings.
As far as Snape goes... I wouldn't be surprised if he's still a good guy. Dumbledore seemed to be pleading with him at the end, but pleading for what? Could it have been as Aslan/Ben Kenobi moment for the old wizard, where death was necessary? Snape declaration that Harry had to be saved for the dark lord seemed a little convenient. I'm not saying that I think he's still a good guy, but I wouldn't be surprised. Basically, I'm just gonna let J.K. drive while I enjoy the scenery in Book 7, and I love when I can look forward to a book like that.
I didn't feel like Harry-Ginny developed too fast. I think it was probably under the surface the over the past couple of years. Remember Harry spends a lot of time with the Weasleys and sees a lot of Ginny. And her character has developed quite a bit over the last 3 books. I was very happy with it. What I didn't like was the Spiderman ending. Harry has plenty of close friends who Voldemort could use to get to him. Is he going to care any less about Ginny just because they're not officially dating?
As to Snape's loyalties...
First of all, I found his explanations to Bellatrix about his behavior for 5 years unconvincing. We have thousands of pages detailing Snape's consistent support of the good side, and only about 50 pages where he is on the evil side. His dislike for Harry is evident, but the detentions and deductions always seemed an ample catharsis. Reversing his character definition in the final pages of book 6 of 7 would be cheap, if in fact it is the case. That being said, to date, Rowling has made sure that all plot developments have become increasingly relevant as the series continues. Thus, Dumbledore's ironclad reason for trusting Snape (which has not yet been revealed), should play a part in the final act.
Finally, if the intensity of the scenes where Harry retrieves the final Horcruxes contain half the intensity of the Horcrux scene from this book, they alone will make book 7 worth the read. That is a long way of saying, "I really like the scene in the sea cave!"
Agreed also that it's a little surprising that Harry was so inclined to be trusting of the Half-Blood Prince, but frankly, Harry is more than a little arrogant. So I believe it. Even after Ginny's admonition that following mysterious instructions in a book can be a bad idea, Harry basically, in his heart, believes that he han handle anything that comes at him. Therefore, he figures, even if the Half-Blood Prince turns out to be bad somehow, he'll still be able to take care of things, and if it helps him with potions in the meantime, then what's the problem? It's a little irresponsible, but that's hardly out of character for Harry. He has many virtues of course, but always thinking things through and doing the responsible thing is not one of them. Even more than that, he's practically built his whole self-identity on his ability to fight and defeat this sort of thing. If he's not taking dangerous risks and overcoming them, then who is he? It's almost like a game for him. (That's all subtext of course.)
That said, I loved (if that's the word) the scene where he uses the hex on Malfoy and it cuts him open! Not that I liked that happening, but just the dramatic impact of the scene. My jaw dropped. It was an excellent illustration of why following those mysterious commands was such a mistake.
I also really liked the discovery of Snape as the HBP, because up to that point, we're thinking: "Gee, okay, we see where the HBP plays into the story, but it doesn't seem important enough to merit the subtitle of the whole book."
But then, of course, when we discover that it is Snape all along, the subtitle of the book effectively becomes: Harry Potter and Snape's School-Age Frustrations, which is, of course, extremely relevant.
Now, onto the end and the big betrayal (or was it? of Snape killing Dumbledore). Of course, there are a million possible interpretations of what happened, but looked at on a pure surface level, it would seem that Snape really was bad after all and finally revealed that.
If that turns out to really be the case, then that's very disappointing, because one of the things that made Snape such a great character was the simple concept that he could actually be a jerk and a "good-guy" at the same time. Therefore, his apparent betrayal sweeps all that away, betraying not only Dumbledore and Harry, but the reader as well.
(I want to note here that it is some truly remarkable story-telling on Rowling's part that people are so insistent on making all these excuses for Snape and spinning all these conspiracy theories in the face of all the evidence.)
All of Snape's explanations to Bellatrix, etc. I thought they could go either way. They were well-written in that regard. To the reader, there were no obvious lies that we knew for a fact to be false, so that means we really have no way of knowing for sure whether he was telling the truth or not.
But the reason that I have hope is pretty simple. When, in the entire series, has Dumbledore ever been so fundamentally wrong about anything? The only other time he has admitted a mistake was just in not telling Harry about the prophecy sooner. As far as mistakes go, that's pretty minor compared to putting your trust and faith in a person who is actually planning to betray you.
Given that, in basically every situation, Dumbledore has always seemed to have a pretty good idea of what was going on, even if things were not entirely under his control.
As a result, if the simple explanation, "Snape betrayed them," is true, that is a betrayal not only of what we had come to believe about Snape, but also of Dumbledore. We've known all along that Dumbeldore trusted Snape, but we didn't really know why.
Do you really think that she's going to finish the series without answering that question? Do you really think that reason is going to turn out to be a poor one?
I don't.
So, where does that leave us? Well, I don't think there's really any question that there was more going on up there in that tower than we know about now. The whole book reads like "Harry Potter Finale: Part 1". Another good comparison is "Empire Strikes Back". With every other book so far, even if things were left unresolved at the end, there was still a definite sense of closure regarding whatever the primary conflict of that book had been. With this one, everything is still up in the air. Book 7 had better be a hell of a payoff, but I have little doubt that it will be.
I really hope that isn't true, because if so, that makes Dumbledore a real manipulative asshole. Really really hope that isn't the answer. I'd rather Snape be all bad than have that happen.
One variation though that might be okay is that Dumbledore knew that, when the time comes for Harry and Voldemort to confront one another, Snape has to be on the scene somehow. If that's the case, then it's conceivable that Dumbledore might conceivably tell Snape to do anything he has to do in order to stay close to Voldemort until then, even if it required Dumbledore's own death.
Dumbledore may not have wanted Snape to kill him precisely, but things developed to the point where that was really the only thing Snape could do without losing LV's trust. So it might have been a sort of: Dumbledore's life is less important to the cause than Snape staying close to Voldemort, so he allowed Snape to kill him as a noble self-sacrifice.
That explanation I might be okay with, but I'm going to need a convincing explanation for how Snape has been managing to fool Voldemort all this time. The simple answer that "he's good at occlumancy" is not good enough for me.
The fact that he ISN'T, for all intents and purposes in this book, kinda points me to the conclusion that he really IS. She's fooled us before.
I was kinda frustrated with Harry's insistent trust of the HBP too, but then, we all made notes in our books in college. I expect Hermione's books look somewhat similar. If they're just somone's notes, why NOT use them for information? Especially when they turn out to be correct 99.9% of the time?
It's not exactly the same situation as with Ginny b/c the book wasn't writing back. I think that if the book HAD turned out like Tom Riddle's diary, then Harry would have destroyed it.
Of course, Harry's paranoia / Cassandra complex is in full swing again. You'd think they'd learn; Harry NEVER lets it rest if he thinks someone should be acting on what he knows. What I want to know is why Dumbledore didn't just say, "Thanks for the info. I'll handle it from here." Not that it would have appeased Harry much, but it would have made him shut up about it.
(Has anyone thought of hiring a psychiatrist for Hogwarts along with the new Defense against Dark Arts teacher? Harry has issues!)
Harry/Ginny? Hopeless romantic me isn't really satisfied, but then what breakup really is satisfying?
I have a lot of respect for Ginny as a person for respecting Harry as a person and his need to finish things with Voldemort. He's not saying "never," he's just saying "not now." And she doesn't say anything about "I'll wait," because that's not certain. She could fall madly in love with Victor Krum next year for all we know. She knows, and we know, that Harry has doubts that he'll come back from facing Voldemort alive.
Loved Lupin and Tonks. Nuff said.
Loved-loved Phlegm and Bill. Nuff said again.
Overall, not really surprised by much in this book, especially not the reveal of Snape as the HBP. Dumbledore's death surprised me when it actually happened, but I'd been expecting it.
Right now I'm rereading the series... read books 1 and 2 yesterday. The vanishing cabinet was broken by Peeves in book two after Filch snagged Harry for dripping mud (before the deathday party). Working on book 3 now (my favorite of the entire series so far) and will hopefully be done with the rest by friday.
There can be many reasons why Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him. It could be that circumstances developed to the point where Snape had to kill him in order to stay close to Voldemort. Also, remember Dumbledore's ties to the phoenix, even brought to the forefront by the phoenix's lament. So you could look to death as a new beginning that might be necessary for the conclusion. Orrrrr, note that some of the ex-headmasters can speak and interact from their portraits. Perhaps it was necessary for Dumbledore to be in his portrait for the conclusion.
Point is, there are many reasons why Dumbledore could have died without it being purely Snape's betrayel. I just can't believe Rowling would spend so much time developing the relationship between Snape being a jerk, but still not being evil (similar to what was about to happen w/Malfoy) only to make him really evil anyway.
I also disagree that we are making excuses and spinning conspiracy theories in front of too much evidence to the contrary. I repeat my earlier point, the majority of the evidence (5 + books) points to Dumbledore's infallable trust of Snape. Only a small portion of the last book is devoted to showing Snape as truly evil.
Still, he's a REALLY good actor.
Okay, now the reason I came back...
Show of hands: Who thinks Harry's scar (or Harry himself) is the sixth horcrux?
Let me clarify that just a tad. What I mean is that the only really strong evidence we have that Snape isn't evil is Dumbledore's ironclad trust in him. I'm not saying that that isn't enough, I'm just saying it's admirable story-telling that it is enough. With a less well-written book or character, we would just believe that he'd been wrong and that would be that. In this series, she's spent six books building him up as someone who isn't likely to be wrong about something as important as this.
So I'm not saying it's wrong to spin these theories (I'm doing it too, after all,) I'm just saying it's a mark of how engaging the stories and the characters are.
Show of hands: Who thinks Harry's scar (or Harry himself) is the sixth horcrux?
Ooh, I never thought of that. I'm not sure it entirely fits with what we know about the prophecy, etc, but it sure is an interesting idea!
Also: A few new picks from the GOF movie over at Aint-it-Cool-News.
Harry Potter 4 pics
I've seen many theories stating that one of the horcruxes is Harry or some other person. In one post I saw someone suggested Luna. It doesn't make sense to me. For one, we know that Voldemort really tried to kill Harry, many times. If Harry or his scar were a horcrux, Voldemort would be trying to protect him at all costs. Another thing, the two horcruxes we know of were extremely well protected. The ring shriveled Dumbledore's hand, and we saw what happened with the amulet. With this in mind, I can't imagine that Voldemort would want a horcrux to be so unprotected. Inside a person, he has very little control over its safety. I think the remaining horcruxes will be very well and deviously guarded.
As for Snape, it won't bother me if he turns out to truly be evil. His character never rang true to me. I always had a hard time with someone who's that petty and mean-spirited, yet has a noble soul. Besides, I think the true twist would be if he actualy is betraying Dumbledore. JKR has led us to believe over these first 5.9 books that Snape is a bad guy on the good side. I've never expected Snape to turn out evil. That said, I'm sure there's more to come on Snape and his motivations. IT won't surprise me if there's some explanation for what happened on the tower besides a complete betrayal.
On Horcruxes, it doesn't make any sense to me that one might be Luna. That seems like a stretch to me with no real evidence other than looking for a way to make her character more relevant to the larger conflict.
The EW story mentioned by Mike (Meitin) also has an interesting bit speculating that Harry &Co. have already encountered the real amulet in Sirius Black's house. R.A.B. could be Regulus Black, Sirius's brother, and also, in Book 5, when they were cleaning the house, they found a "heavy locket that none of them could open."
As for Harry being one of the horcruxes, Chris has a good point that it seems unlikely that LV would want one to be so unprotected, but what if Harry was meant to be the last (7th) horcrux, but then the whole process backfired? Meaning, part of LV's soul got implanted as planned, but LV's power got lost in the process. That could be related to how Harry's blood was able to restore him.
Also, one might ask, what would be better protected than an an innocent baby?
I have read several discussions about R.A.B being Regulus Black and the locket being contained in Grimmauld place. Regulus Black was a Death Eater, so he might have been privy to the knowledge of horcruxes (as R.A.B must have been). I heard one theory that perhaps Snape assisted Regulus (because we know two people are required). Assuming the potion that is drunk does not refill itself, a potion master like Snape would be able to do it. Also, Snape's assistance in retrieving the horcrux could be the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape.
I found this theory interesting, which is why I posted it here, but there are two big holes in it. First, we know the boat only allowed one wizard at a time. Snape and Regulus would have had extreme difficulty getting to the island. My personal thought is that Regulus (if in fact he is R.A.B) took Kreacher along. He could order Kreacher to keep feeding him the potion and they both would have been able to be on the boat. Second, if Dumbledore trusted Snape because he knew he had helped retrieve the horcrux, then he would have known not to go to the cave looking for it, I would assume.
I remember a vague reference to a mass breakout of Azkaban mentioned in HBP as well. There might not be any prisoners left to guard.
Then, too, the use of Azkaban might have originated in placating the Dementors, which Dumbledore says were Voldemort's allys in OoP. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) With a stable, constant food source, it would take the Dementors off the Dark side of the field and put them in a neutral position, which is probably all the Ministry of Magic could hope for from them.
As for the Regulus Black hypothesis... It makes sense (as that's the only name I've seen with those initials), but why would Regulus order Kretcher feed Regulus the potion when Regulus could order Kretcher to drink it himself, thus leaving Regulus unharmed and able to steal the locket?
There was a mass breakout fromo Azkaban in book 5. That's when the Lestranges got out. But there are prisoners there now as well. Everyone captured in the battle at the Ministry of Magic at the end of book 5 is there, including Lucius Malfoy.
Good point Lee about the Dementors. Having them guard Azkaban probably kept them from raiding the general populace, but they should have listened to Dumbledore at the end of GOF and removed them at that time.
I also seem to recall that the mass breakout from Azkaban where the Lestranges got out was specifically related to the Dementors abandoning their posts and essentially helping them escape. Of course, that could not be confirmed at the time, because Fudge and the MoM was still insisting that it hadn't happened at all.
Now, if I remember right, LV's plan was to split his soul into seven pieces, six of which would be in horcruxes, and the seventh which would remain in his own body. Is that correct? Someone tell me if its not. But Chris raises an interesting idea, what if the part that had been intended to stay in his body got taken out? What would happen? All the pieces have to be destroyed for him to die, so I guess that wouldn't change, but what would happen to his body if there were no parts of his soul left in it? (Might it, for example, be left with no physical form?)
Still though, the idea that Harry might have part of LV's soul inside him somehow could have very scary implications given the prophecy. If, in order to kill LV, all pieces must be destroyed, how does one do that if the piece is embedded inside a person? (I'm reminded here of the fates of Sherlock Holms and Prof. Moriarty, where Holmes gave up his own life in order to take Moriarty down with him).
Regarding what happened to Voldemort, I found this section -
So it sounds like what happened at Godric's Hollow was that the AK rebounded on Voldemort and destroyed his body, but couldn't kill his soul due to the horcruxes he had created binding him to the earth. This is what caused his ghostlike existence, until he found Quirrell wandering in the woods. So then the question is, could the destruction of his body be enough to inadvertantly create a horcrux? I hope it's not that. I don't want to see Harry as the tragic hero.
Personally, I think we all have just as much luck foreseeing the end of the series as Prof. Trelawney does of predicting what dinner will be. Educated guess based on past experience, yes; definate knowledge, no.
And we're doing it anyway. ^_^ How great is that?
Snape had to kill Dumbledore because of Malfoy. Remember at the beginning, when Snape made the Unbreakable Vow? Well, that's the reason why Snape had to kill Dumbledore, so that he would do Malfoy's task. I'm pretty sure Dumbledore knows that Malfoy was planning to kill him and Snape probably told him about his Vow, so....if that's the case, Snape couls still be a good guy.
Well, we'll have to wait and see.