Harry Potter SPOILERS

[Shapley]

Saxy,

I agree, I don't recall there being mention of the destruction of the time-turners in book 5, but that is where they were supposedly destroyed. I would guess that one or two survived. Surely someone had one checked out at the time. One has to ask, did the one Hermione used belong to the ministry or to Hogwarts?

I think Rowling had them destroyed to prevent the obvious solution to all this: Go back in time and prevent Dumbledore's death. If the time turners were still around, that would be the obvious solution. Maybe she figured out she had painted herself into a corner with the use of the devise, and needed an out, hence their destruction.

V/R
Shapley

[mmichaelson]

At least she's paying attention to those sorts of details!

[RC]

Shap,
My daughter just clued me in about one of your postulates, Harry returning to the Dursley's.
It could be as easy to explain as the original attempt on Harry's life and the subsequent protection of his "family"/"home". I can't remember if Dumbledore bewitched the Dursley situation for Harry's protection or it happened naturally because Petunia is Harry's auntie. It is quite possible that Harry's return simply provides one last protection while he prepares for his attack on Voldemort. Or one last snipe at the Dursley family for our enjoyment.

???

What fun.

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by Shapley:
You gotta take time for yourself.

Fortunately, the wife is in Hawaii, so she doesn't notice.

I guess I consider the time reading on the internet to be my "me" time. I check out a few sites every night after the kids go to bed. Mostly humor, photography and racing sites. Maybe I should divert some of that time to reading books.

Vacation is another place where people read books. With starting a business, I haven't taken a vaction in over 4 years.

BigJon

[Shapley]

RC,

If I recall correctly, Dumbledore explained to the Dursley's that he had provided them protection in exchange for their raising Harry "as if he were their own son", and chastised them for failing to do so. Harry was leaving, and would be of age the next year, but Dumbledore asked that Harry be allowed to return one more time, in exchange for which he would leave the protections in place until Harry's seventeenth birthday. It would seem that he could just have easily ended the commitment, and the protections, then and there, but had reason to leave them in place until Harry had completed one more visit.

I suspect this will play an important role in the next book. My guess is that it will be the meeting place of Harry and Dumbledore, but I could just be an optimist.

V/R
Shapley

[bignaf]

Dursleys don't need protection. the protections are for Harry.
you can't go back in time and prevent something that happened. you can go back in time and prevent something that didn't happen. remember, they only thought Buckbeak was killed.
Dumby is dead, otherwise, how was Harry freed from his freezing spell? also Snape couldn't break his unbreakable vow to Mrs. Malfoy.
the book contrasts the weakness of Dumbledore that lead to his destruction (belief in humanity) with Voldemort's weakness that will lead to his destruction (ignorance of love).
Dumby is dead, just give up.
BTW http://www.beethoven.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001275;p=1#000022 vote!!!

[mmichaelson]

It IS still possible that Dumbledore will appear again, even though dead. He doesn't have to neccessarily be alive to return. Why should we give it up?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

It's true, we have had multiple appearances by dead people, throughout the series.

Didn't Dumbledore's picture appear in the Headmaster's office? With all the other dead headmasters? That, and the Phoenix's farewell song at the funeral, lead me to believe that he is really dead. Would Ffawkes deceive Harry? It seems un-Phoenixlike behavior.

Dumbledore has unswervingly trusted Snape, throughout the series and in the face of strong evidence that Snape is not a nice guy. But I have noticed that Dumbledore never says what he trusts Snape to do. I suspect that Dumbledore knew exactly what sort of person Snape is, and trusted him to act true to his nature and betray Dumbledore. It is possible that this treachery sets up a necessary plot twist that we won't find out about until Book 7 is published.

[bignaf]

the pictures aren't live. they are just pictures that behave the same way their real-life counterparts did.

[mmichaelson]

Even if the picture isn't alive the pics in the headmaster's office have proven to have unique replies to different conversations, which leads one to believe that they have been endowed with more than just basic aspects of their counterparts. Like I said, Dumbledore doesn't have to be alive to return. Even the painting in his office would feel the same way about Harry and try to advise him -it's in his nature.

[Shapley]

Dumbledore's picture in the Headmasters office has not moved, spoken, nor opened its eyes. It could be part of the ploy to appear dead.

As I said, he judt finished telling Malfoy that being dead was the best defense against Voldemort. Voldemort has no more need to pursue Dumbledore, leaving Dumbledore free to search for the Horcruxes in peace.

No one saw what the Phoenix was doing, with the possible exception of Hagrid. They were all inside the castle while the Phoenix sang his lament. Perhaps the tears of the Phoenix spared Dumbledore of his afflixion due to the potion he drank. As I've said, there is nothing in the book that states positively that Dumbledore's body is in the white tomb.

Book seven has a lot of ground to cover!

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Originally posted by Selma in Sandy Eggo:
It's true, we have had multiple appearances by dead people, throughout the series.

Didn't Dumbledore's picture appear in the Headmaster's office? With all the other dead headmasters? That, and the Phoenix's farewell song at the funeral, lead me to believe that he is really dead. Would Ffawkes deceive Harry? It seems un-Phoenixlike behavior.

Dumbledore has unswervingly trusted Snape, throughout the series and in the face of strong evidence that Snape is not a nice guy. But I have noticed that Dumbledore never says what he trusts Snape to do. I suspect that Dumbledore knew exactly what sort of person Snape is, and trusted him to act true to his nature and betray Dumbledore. It is possible that this treachery sets up a necessary plot twist that we won't find out about until Book 7 is published.

Yes, I thought so too. I favor this alternative theory.

[mmichaelson]

Shap - I agree. that's pretty likely

[Shapley]

Well, I've been thinking about it, and it occurs to me that the answer is right there in the book, and in book five as well. Professor Snape tells Harry, "No unforgivable spells from you - you're hearts not in it." In book five, I believe it is Bellatrix who tells him that unforgivable spells will not work unless your heart is in it.

In order for Snape to kill Dumbledore, he had to want to kill him. If his heart wasn't in it, it couldn't be done, unbreakable vow or not.

V/R
Shapley

[Andy Warton]

So much to say!!! This is indeed the mother of all posts.

First of all, I think that Dumbledore may well be alive - an experienced wizard such as he would surely know how to undo a petrificus totalus spell, wouldn't he? And I have to agree with Saxy Buff...

Seems strange that Voldemort is mortally aftraid of Dumbledore and has been unable to kill him yet Snape can??

It just seems unlikely that someone as great as Dumbledore would a) have drunk the weakening potion without being more aware of it's capabilities than he let on, and more importantly, b)would be undone by Snape, when Voldemort was scared of him.
Besides, I don't think that Rowling would want to put such a young readership through so much actual death - I also think that Rowling's portrayal of Dumbledore as a hugely trusting character was meant to say something - that if you put your trust in people, they repay you. Dumbledore has been outspoken before; Rowling surely wouldn't want to send the message that if you trust too much, you'll get avada kedavra'd in the back? Or would she?
About this:

Well, I've been thinking about it, and it occurs to me that the answer is right there in the book, and in book five as well. Professor Snape tells Harry, "No unforgivable spells from you - you're hearts not in it." In book five, I believe it is Bellatrix who tells him that unforgivable spells will not work unless your heart is in it.

In order for Snape to kill Dumbledore, he had to want to kill him. If his heart wasn't in it, it couldn't be done, unbreakable vow or not.

I simply think that Snape wanted to stop Harry performing an unforgiveable curse. Did anyone else notice that he never actually let Harry finish saying the curse? I bet it's because Harry has to be pure of heart/soul in order to kill Voldemort forever, or something like that. Also, notice how enraged Snape was when Harry called him a coward for not attacking - almost certainly because someone had ordered Snape not to attack: the question is, was it Dumbles or Voldo that issued the command...?
And about Snape having his heart in killing Dumbles, if it meant being a part of slayng Voldemort forever, surely he could perform it properly?
Oh, and I don't think Bella ever told Harry his heart had to be in an unforgiveable in order to do it properly - I think she only said that righteous anger wouldn't keep a crucio curse going for long; it had to be cruel, evil vivious anger to make it work. I could be wrong though.
Oooh! I can't hardly wait for the next book!!

<small>[ 08-02-2005, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: Andy W ]</small>

[Andy Warton]

Okay. Taking piq's advice, I'm gonna post this, and if anybody wants to reply to the above post, please do; if you don't ignore this post.

[Shapley]

Andy,

Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I wanted to go back and check #5 to see exactly what it was that Bellatrix said to Harry when he tried to perform the Curse, but I keep forgetting to do so.

It's clear to me that Snape didn't want to kill Harry, and ordered the Death Eaters not to as well, but that shouldn't have prevented him from knocking him down with a powerful curse. I don't think he meant him any harm (he performed the countercurse in book #1 when Quirrel/Voldemort tried to kill Harry). I think it is evident that he does not want Harry harmed, and don't think that comes from Voldemort. But I could be wrong.

V/R
Shapley

[Andy Warton]

Shapley,
I found what you were looking for in HP #5:

"Never used and unforgiveable curse before, have you, boy? You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't keep me in pain for long..."

I hope I'm not breaking any copyright laws...

[Shapley]

Andy,

Thanks, that was the line I was looking for. I think that is consistent with my earlier point, which is that Snape could not kill Dumbledore with the curse merely because he was obligated to do so by the vow, he had to mean to kill him.

V/R
Shapley

[Andy Warton]

But surely, if bumbping off old Dumbles meant that Voldemort would one day be gnoe forever, Snape could summon the strength to do it?

That was, by the way, sort of a knee-jerk reaction to your argument - I don't believe Dumbledore's dead either. It just doesn't make sense, for all the reasons laid out in my ridiculously lengthy post, earlier.