Harry Potter theory behind the cut

[trystinn]

I'm desperately trying to figure out the LJ Objects, so on the off chance I've royally screwed this up, stop reading NOW if you don't want to read the spoiler ahead!


Went by Wind & Tide Bookstore today to pick up the book Sebastian told me to read and had a great conversation with regards to the new Potter book. When I did so, each of them looked shocked, started humming and began nodding.  So I was asked to "put it out there" to see how others respond so when we get back together on Friday for our "Post-Potter bookreview club" we can go over responses.



"Harry Potter is the last Horcrux. Which makes sense of various loose threads. Why Harry has Voldemort's powers, why Voledmort needs to control him, and definately explains a lot more about why Harry was the "Chosen One". Since his mother was killed by Voldemort, thereby necessitating the making of/or creation of Harry as the Horcrux and why Voldemort wasn't able to kill him while a baby. The only thing I've quite yet to work out, is does Voldemort really want to kill Harry, given that destroying all the Horcruxes should
reduce Voldemort back to his mortal self?"

Comments

[drgndancer.livejournal.com]

"The only thing I've quite yet to work out, is does Voldemort really want to kill Harry, given that destroying all the Horcruxes should reduce Voldemort back to his mortal self?"

Unless, of course, Voldemort doesn't realize that Harry is a Horcrux. It may have happened as an unintended result of the failed curse. One thing your theory does necessitate is Harry's death as a sacrifice to ensure that Voldemort never returns. I waffle on whether or not she intends to kill Harry at the end. It seems really rather harsh, I mean it's one thing to kill important secondary characters, quite another to kill off the guy who's name is in the title of every one of the seven books (and just shy of his 18th birthday too). On the other hand the sacrificed hero is an important archetype. You'd be really hard pressed to still call the series "children's books" if she does though.

Anybody wanna here my theory on why Snape is still not a bad guy?

[tryst-inn.livejournal.com]

The only theory I've trying to invest my energies in is that killing Dumbledore was to support Snapes reputation with the Death Eaters and that somehow, he and Dumbledore arranged this.

But hey, I'm naive enough to think that since Siruis fell through the Veil, he may yet return, as well.

Do tell us yours!

[drgndancer.livejournal.com]

That basically sums it up. When Dumbledore says "Severous, Please." It was not, as both Harry and the Death Eaters believe, him begging Snape NOT to do it, but rather him begging Snape to do it.

Dumbledore knew that Malfoy was trying to kill him. He probably knew (and possibly even told him too) that Snape had sworn the Unbreakable Oath to help. The reasons were two fold: first, If Snape killed Dumbledore he would be the single most trusted and beloved Death Eater, thus putting him in an ideal double agent position. Second he is saving Malfoy from killing anyone. Dumbledore knows that Malfoy isn't really a killer, and hopes to make him an ally. He also knows that desperate people do desperate things though. Once Malfoy is a murder he will be much harder to turn from his path.

Even if I'm right though, and there is no guarantee of that, there's plenty of unexplained mysteries left. Like how Dumbledore expects to influence things from his current state of deadness.

[tryst-inn.livejournal.com]

Yep, all you've said makes a LOT of sense.

I get the feeling Fawkes has been pretty influential in Dumbledore's life. Perhaps that phoenix (blue, as I recall?) will be influential for Harry.

I'm having a ball watching my husband read the book in the evenings...he just grits his teeth, grunts "hmph" from time to time and frowns a lot!