The betting pool thread made me think we could use a general place for people to discuss what they think will happen in book 7. You may refer to anything in the first 6 books to back you up so if you haven't read all of them, here is your SPOILER WARNING!

Since this is a forum for writers, I'm eager to see if anyone has found clues in the structure of the books. Some of the debates on this one are heated which tells me, among other things, that Rowling did a lot of things right in her story telling. I've been trying to learn from that.

For example, my theory for why Harry will live is based entirely on the premise that Rowling doesn't need to kill him. She has set up enough dramatic tension and enough fear that she COULD kill him that in the end, carrying out that death is unnecessary. I definitely fear for his life and I am not at all sure that Rowling will see eye to eye with me on this theory, but the fact that so many people think Harry will die in the end is proof that she's done a superb job of instilling that fear in all of us. I've been afraid for Harry's life since book 5, when it became abundantly clear that Rowling wasn't above killing characters, even meaningful ones. Book 4 didn't effect me as much because Digger was more of a throwaway character (although I did like him because of his good sportsmanship).

The reason I think the Snape will die is because that is the only acceptable path for him after he killed Dumbledore. It doesn't even matter if he turns out to be good or evil (although I think that his story will end up being a lot more complex than those simple labels -- Rowling has emphasized a world in grayscale for a long time).

1) Foreshadowing:
Rowling has heavily foreshadowed that Harry dies in several places in the books. One of the most obvious is in Sorcerer's Stone. When Harry meets Voldemort/Quirrel in the woods, a centaur saves him. The other centaurs are upset at this because by preventing Voldemort from killing Harry, the rescuing centaur has defied what is "written" in the stars. The implication is that Harry's death by Voldemort's hand is "written." Another bit of foreshadowing is that Nicholas Flemel allows the sorcerer's stone to be destroyed, even though it's destruction necessarily means his death. This may directly parallel an identical dilemma Harry is likely to face in Deathly Hallows, where, given his link to Voldemort, his own death may be required to destroy all the horcruxes.

2) Dumbledore has been preparing Harry to die well:
There are many conversations in the book about death, and they are almost always between Harry and Dumbledore. Dumbledore has told Harry time and time again the dying is nothing to be afraid of; has trained Harry to see death with a philosopher's eye. Most of all, with his own self-sacrificial death (from the Snape-is-good line of thinking), Dumbledore lead by example, and showed Harry what he will be required to do.

I believe the only time a "good" wizard has contemplated killing was when Lupin and Black were ready to execute Pettigrew. "Good" wizards can't used the deadliest magic, in this universe.

There has been a lot of discussion about Harry's scar being a horcrux. None of us know enough about how they are formed to know if it could have happened like that, quasi-involuntarily in the last moments of Voldemort's corporeal existence. If so, then there is one way Harry might survive... if he kills Voldemort and himself and in so doing creates a horcrux of his own. But he will have the same amount of talent as Neville Longbottom. I think this goes in well with the statement that it is our choices and not our talents that make us who we are. So that's one way it could work.

Until yesterday I was convinced Harry would choose to allow himself to be killed, rendering Voldemort a muggle who would then be killed by Bellatrix. This would happen because Harry's blood and Pettigrew's flesh are the only magical components of Voldemort's current body, and Pettigrew's life belongs to Harry. I thought Dumbledore's reaction to the news that Voldemort used Harry's blood to regenerate himself at the end of Goblet of Fire was telling. He had a momentary triumphant look, then sat down as if very tired. So it was a mixed reaction.

I think in the end, Harry will have a choice of what to do. I think he will see facing death squarely as preferable to following the path of making a horcrux.

P.S. I just wanted to strengthen my case on the morality of killing in the Potterverse by pointing out that Umbridge is still alive.

I can kind of see her point in that Snape and Dumbledore knew the situation that would come and there were examples in bk 5 of what the Avada Kedavra curse did when the individual did not fuel it with sufficient hate and intent.

The question then becomes, Have they died? Sirius, there was no body. No proof of death. Dumbledore...There were refere nces throughout that book to a potion of Living Death or something along those lines. She isn't lying by saying that those who are dead will stay dead if they hgaven't in fact died.

The 9 month timing is about right, given that the new book should open in the summer (at Bill/Fleur's wedding), finishing in June...

Other snippets:

We will all have to choose between what is easy and what is right.

Voldemort is obsessed with never dying.

Also, I now think Ginny dies.

A few more predictions from me:

Dudley Dursley will be the person who does magic "late in life." (Rowling mentioned that there would be a character who had never done magic before and would under extreme circumstances in this book....but not Petunia.)

If Harry lives, he will be the next (and last) Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher.

Harry's life will be in danger from the moment he turns 17.

Ginny will not die. (She's a popular choice, and one of the few characters I am reasonably sure will not die.)

Black's death while it left no body, the reactions of the adults made a very clear statement that Black was dead and there was no way to save him. While it was never explained, I took it that the archway was the wizard version of an execution chamber. Pitch them through the arch and they are gone for good. I wouldn't be surprised if we get an explanation or see that arch again in the last book. (I'm not certain of it though).

Cedrick...well, he was brought in to die.

So, I still say that the prophecy has dictated the outcome. Harry lives and kill Voldemort. How? Well, that will be fun reading to find out. The possibilities are too vast to even begin to guess. Who dies? I think Hagrid lives. Only because he is partially magic resistant, and he is a solid figure in Harry's life. After the climax, I imagine Hagrid will be there to help clean up...maybe even carry Harry off the battlefield.

Snape I think will live. I still think there is some form of bond that will force Snape to protect Harry, maybe Snape is someone who has destroyed more of the other Horcruxes floating around. I probably dislike Snape as much as everyone else, but I still have too many suspicions about his motives. I could even imagine that Snape killing Dumbledore was part of a larger plan, one that did have Dumbledore's hand in it. Since I think even Dumbledore knew that as long as he was around, he would protect Harry, and also, he spent quite a bit of time preparing Harry for what to do in case of his death. What if, and yes, I'm reaching here, Snape is still on the side of good, and his killing of Dumbledore was to confirm his place by Voldemort's side. So when Harry did face Voldemort, Snape would be there to prevent someone else from doing Harry in. The end of book six Snape kept reminding Harry how open his mind was and that he would never stand a chance against Voldemort when he couldn't close his mind. If my guessing is wrong, then I think that would make him a prime candidate for Harry's first execution.

One other thing to remember about the Harry Potter world, killing evil wizards by good ones had been done in the past. The spells are not unknown to Harry, and I'm betting Harry does have the force to use one or two effectively now.

quote:

---

While it was never explained, I took it that the archway was the wizard version of an execution chamber. Pitch them through the arch and they are gone for good.

---

Dumbledore is DEAD. I knew he would die before I read book 5. The real question to me was would it be book 5 or 6, for I knew all along that Harry needed to come out from his mentor's shadow and stand alone and unaided in the last book. Dumbledore is not alive. I can't be more positive about that.

I have a lot of theories about Snape, none of which involve Dumbledore asking him to kill him. To me, that's right out. My favorite theory at the moment is that Snape isn't on anyone's side but his own and has been playing both sides all along, hoping to latch on to the winning side when it became obvious which side would win. I think what happened in book 6 was that he was forced to make his choice early.

1. They spent much of the sixth book discussing how bad it is to kill -- it rips your soul apart. The entire series has suggested that murder is awful. Harry, in book three, saying he didn't htink his father would want his best friends to become killers for a wretch like Wormtail. Harry's dismay hearing the prophecy, that he would have to become murderer or victim...there was no other way. Dumbledore, speaking calmly to Malfoy about how he couldn't really do it and it was harder that he had thought.

2. Dumbledore talking with Malfoy. I recently reread the daeth scene (I've reread it about a dozen times, mind you, with some of the theories flying around) and Dumbledore's plan to get Malfoy and his mother to safety does not make it sound as if Dumbledore was expecting to die any moment. In fact...hold on just a second while I get a quote...

"I tried, Draco. Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you on my orders--"

"He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother--"

"Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but--"

I do not believe that Snape told Dumbledore about the unbreakable vow he took. This does not make it seem as if Dumbledore knows about it.

3. Dumbledore may not believe that death is the worst thing, but he still would not have suicided. There is no reason in the world that he would ask Snape to kill him. So that they could retain their spy? No. The truth is that Dumbledore is much more valuable as the only one You-Know-Who was ever afraid of than Snape is as a spy. Especially as a spy that no one in the Order is likely to trust any longer. It is illogical to make this trade off.

**************

I could probably come up with some other reasons, but I think the biggest thing I have to say is this: If Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him than it requires a lot of twisting and reading betwen the lines. That doesn't seem to be the game Rowling plays. You have to suggest, for example, that when Dumbledore said in a pleading voice, "Severus, please," that he was begging Snape to kill him instead of having a moment of truest humanity and being afraid for his life, which is the much plainer meaning (and the picture of my hero that I quite enjoyed before I got on message boards and first came across the idea that Snape didn't just show his true colors). You have to come up with some reason that Dumbledore lied to Draco above about knowing of the unbreakable vow -- for he surely did not seem tok now anything about it. You have to come up with a reason why it was all right for Snape to kill, especially using an unforgivable curse, whether it was his own idea or Dumbledore's. You have to explain away his seeming knowledge of the plan in chapter 2 by suggesting he was only pretending to know of it when it was clear that Voldemort expected Snape to be the one to have to do it in the end. Malfoy was only revenge, after all, for his displeasure at Lucius. You have to read an awful lot into snippets of conversation that could mean any number of things. In fact, there is not one piece of incontrovertible evidence to support the theory that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him.

That's the best defense of the "Snape is bad" position I've seen yet, and it deserves a thoughtful and full response--which will come later.

For now I will say three things:
1) Your second point--that Dumbledore appeared not to know about the unbreakable vow--is something I hadn't considered fully before, and appears to be the strongest piece of evidence for your position. The situation can't be resolved with absolute certainty, as Rowling intended.

EDITED TO ADD: One explanation is yours--that he just didn't know. Another is that Dumbledore did know about the unbreakable vow (which explains the argument overheard by Hagrid), but he couldn't let Draco know that he knew because doing so would blow Snape's cover and ruin the whole plan.

2) Your theory relies primarily on your interpretation of the morality of killing in the Potterverse. I think this premise is mistaken. I see nothing in the books to indicate that killing is bad all the time, or that killing always divides the soul--only that willful murder is evil. Lilly Potter's actions on Harry's behalf were murder--self-murder--yet no one thinks that the action divided her soul or was evil. It is strongly implied that Dumbledore, for example, killed Grindewald, and no one thinks that evil. It appears the members of the Order of the Phoenix and Aurors fought and occasionally killed dark wizards, without dividing thier souls or doing evil. So it is entirely possible for Snape to kill Dumbledore without violating the morals of the Potterverse, if he is doing so for the greater good, with Dumbledore's knowledge and consent.

3) Your interpretation of Dumbledore pleading "in a moment of humanity" ignores huge portions of the previous books. In at least three different conversations, Dumbledore counsels Harry about death and dying. If Dumbledore is to be believed, he didn't fear death at all. If you interpret his plea to Snape your way, it's not just "a moment of humanity," it's a betrayal of a large part of what he has taught Harry over the prior books.

[This message has been edited by J (edited July 13, 2007).]

If you didn't get that from the first 6 books then we may have to call that another one of those murky areas but I would point out that Harry's mom did not kill herself or suicide herself -- she SACRIFICED herself. Self-sacrifice very different from murder or even suicide. She died to save her son and in the magical world, that creates a powerful counter-curse, strong enough to block the killing curse.

As for #3....I did not overlook at all that Dumbledore has been saying all along that there are worse things than death and that "To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." It's been a running theme since book 1. This does not preclude Dumbledore being afraid, in that moment, of Snape killing him. He still had a lot he could have done to stop Voldemort had he lived, after all. He was even trying to help Malfoy moments before. He's human, and I believe the last two books (5 and 6) tried their hardest to turn Dumbledore from a distant icon into a real person with real weaknesses -- such as being too trusting. That came up many times. (Another reason why I think Snape is evil, albeit a minor point.) Yes, Dumbledore was prepared to die, willing to die, not afraid of death and yet...when the moment came upon him...he did have reservations. I think just about anyone would feel the same way, no matter how prepared they were for death.

[Edited to add] It just occurred to me that aside from pleading for his own life, Dumbledore might have been pleading for Snape's life -- or rather, his goodness. If he knew Snape was about to turn back to the dark side and he was perfectly at ease to die, he still might be concerned that his friend was about to suffer a relapse -- possibly due to the fact that he finally got the DADA job, something Dumbledore was reluctant to give him for a long time because of his concern that it might cause a relapse.

Well, it makes perfect sense in my mind, anyway. if that doesn't explain why I don't see a contradiction then once again, we will have to agree to disagree. I've been in many such debates over the last couple of years and that's usually how they end.

I'm so excited for next week...I've got the countdown ticker on my desktop.

I heard another theory that Snape and Dumbledore exchanged places using polyjuice potion and that it was really Snape who died (but I don't believe that one at all).

In the end of the second book, Dumbledore told Harry that Voldemort had put part of himself in Harry, which is as good a definition of a horcrux as any. Suppose Voldemort had gone to Godric's Hollow to kill Harry and was all prepared to create a super-horcrux in the process. Then, when Lily sacrificed herself, the horcrux was created without Voldemort realizing it, but it contains part of Lily as well as part of Voldemort.

Here's a quote from the scene:

"How do you split your soul?"

"Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is mean to remain intact and whole Splitting it is an act of violation. It is against nature."

"But how do you do it?"

"By an act of evil -- the supreme act of evil. By Committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon using a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage. He would encase the torn portion--"

...

So you see, I do not believe that I am overstating the morality of killing in the Potterverse. I felt that Rowling made it quite clea rin this conversation that in her world, killing is supremely evil. Harry is going to have to kill Voldemort but this is not a tastk to be undertaken lightly. He will have to sacrifice himself -- a portion of his soul, even, to make this happen.

Also, this scene makes it clear that Voldemort does hvae a torn, tattered piece of soul left and that it is probably torn into more than 7 pieces. I believe the implication here is that he only used the incantation to make the Horcrux 7 times. And not every death eater who killed would have Horcruxes. First of all, they would have to know the incantation. Second, they would have to want to do it. Just prior to the snippet I quoted, Slughorn says that no one in their right mind would want to live in the form that you would take if you used your Horcrux -- that death would be preferable. Indeed, before Voldemort got a body back he was "Less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost."

Much of the sixth book was dedicated to understanding Voldemort -- and few were as desperate to become immortal as Voldemort. Few would be willing to go through what he did.

"By an act of evil -- the supreme act of evil. By Committing MURDER. KILLING rips the soul apart. "

You see we're approaching our predictions not as zealous fanboys but as writers, who are on some level or another familiar with plotting. (I should say we're not doing this just because we're fanboys.)

There are a couple of things to think about, though, even if we accept her moral absolute:

1. We don't really understand the concept of a ripped soul. We know that many of the death eaters have killed and it's not like they are half zombies. The exact implications of a ripped soul are unknown. It is even possible that unless you put part of the soul in a horcrux, the ripped portions remain inside you (so that you are not depleted in quantity of soul, only quality).

2. We do know that Aurores have the power to kill in extreme circumstances, but I seem to recall that when Mad Eye was introduced in Book 4(sorry, no time to find an exact quote today as I'm not entirely sure where my copy of that one is) that they praised Moody for always bringing in the death eaters alive, when possible. It seemed to be a virtue.

I was also thinking....all right, let's throw away the morality of the Potterverse for a moment and use my own take on this. Personally, I do think there are times when killing is justified and I distinguish between killing and murder. I still don't see why it is justified in the case of Snape killing Dumbledore unless Dumbledore asked Snape to do it, which would lower my opinion of Dumbledore quite a bit.

Anyway....moving along....

I do have a few hesitancies about the "Snape is evil" viewpoint that, in all fairness, I should mention:

1. Dumbledore trusted Snape -- VEHEMENTLY. I'm still not sure what that was all about. My husband thinks that she explained it in book 6 and that it was all because Snape said he was sorry he turned Lily and James over to Voldermot, but I want a better answer, personally.

Rowling has spent a lot of time developing Neville from the bumbling fool in book 1 to the person who can exact vengance on Bella for his parents. What is in the book, but missing from the movie, is the statement that the prophesy could have applied to Neville as well as Harry. Still it is a way to go.

A main theme in the novels is that people aren't what they seem to be and prejudices are bad. Harry has been prejudiced against Snape since the get go merely because he's Slitherin.
I think Snape is working on Dumbledore's orders. The unbreakable oath isn't a violation of what Dumbledore would want Snape to do i.e. protect Malfory and Harry from Voldemort. Snape could have turned Harry in to Dolores but he didn't. He also warned the Order about the attempt to steal the prophecy/kill Harry at the Minestry. I think he hates protecting Harry but will do so. He kept Malfoy from using the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra) on Harry as they are fleeing. These actions are against Voldemort's interests but certainly in Dubbledore's.

Snape still owes Sirus and James a life. They did save him from Lupin when he was a werewolf. He can't pay them directly since they are dead but Harry is thier heir. Snape might get to pay that debt at the final showdown.

The books make Neville out to be a very good person, and I think the only person he might be able to kill would be Bellatrix for what she did to his parents. Neville really is a "nice" guy...a bit too innocent.