padfoot806

Okay, I get it a little, but I think I need more explanation. Let's say for theory's sake that Harry Avada Kedavra's Voldemort. What would the horcruxes do for that? Are you saying that all horcruxes would continue to be horcruxes, or that one would be destroyed -- or, rather, used -- to "replenish" Voldemort's "soul supply," if you will. If one did, which one and why? Or, if all horcruxes continued to be horcruxes, what would that do for Voldemort? OR, are you saying that the one-seventh of Voldemort's soul that is in his body simply cannot be completely destroyed as long as the other horcruxes exist, which would account for his re-births? And if it is the case that the seventh of Voldemort's soul that is in his body cannot be destroyed -- why? The six horcruxes can be destroyed...what makes them different? I know you don't have all the definite answers (presumably); I'm just asking for opinions here.

I have a question about horcruxes. I mean, you could theoretically kill a person before you destroyed the horcruxes that contained other portions of that person's soul, right? So Harry could destroy Voldemort and THEN destroy Hufflepuff's chalice or whatever...or would the portion of Voldemort's soul in Hufflepuff's chalice become a new Voldemort? If the Riddle diary hadn't been destroyed and Ginny had in fact died, would there be two Voldemorts? Would the diary have joined up with the embodied Voldemort? Also, if Harry's scar is a horcrux and Harry killed Voldemort, in what manner would Voldemort live on in Harry? Would a new Voldemort pop out of Harry's forehead for him to do battle with? I really just don't understand. In regard to the question about whether or not you can kill a person before you destroy the horcruxes, my logic is that it seems improbable to me that the Voldemort with the body could not be destroyed before the horcruxes.... If you imagine Voldemort himself as just a seventh horcrux, what would make this horcrux special? It's not logical unless it's the sort of deal where all the horcruxes must be destroyed in the order in which they were made, so to speak, with their originator destroyed last. In that case the Riddle diary would come first...but what of the others? Do we even know the order in which they were made?

I was only wondering because Dumbledore said he doubted Voldemort knew when the other horcruxes were being destroyed. However, if he knew about Harry's scar being a horcrux, he would probably still be highly aware of it. Although Dumbledore did say that it was unlikely Voldemort knew that Harry could feel his scar prickling when Voldemort was feeling intense emotions...so I suppose I've answered my own question.

When people first started suggesting that Harry's scar was a horcrux, I disagreed, but it's definitely starting to make a whole lot of sense. Oh, and I didn't mean to say Harry's scar made an eighth horcrux -- I wasn't thinking. Do you think, if Harry's scar is indeed the sixth horcrux, that Voldemort knows? If he didn't know, you'd think he'd go ahead and try to make another one -- either that or forget about them completely in light of recent trauma (namely, almost dying).

Harry's scar? How can that be? I thought the other horcrux was something of either Gryffindor or Ravenclaw. If Harry's scar is indeed a horcrux, it must be the eighth. By the time Voldemort got to Harry's parents, he was already at the height of his powers and probably had already created his seven horcruxes. Whatever he gave to Harry would not have been intentional. And when Voldemort tried to possess Harry in the fifth book, he couldn't. Although...now that I think about it, it would make a lot of sense. Still, what of Gryffindor or Ravenclaw's object?

No one has said anything for a while...please don't let this thread die! Talking to adults is so much more fulfilling than talking to teenagers. All they can talk about is how mad/glad they are about Ron and Hermione. I still need to know what everyone thinks about the Snape issue.

Oh, and Raf...Harry and Ginny...it was one of my worst fears realized.

I agree that after finishing this book, it didn't feel satisfactorily ended. Raf, I see what you mean about emotional investment, and it being potentially squandered if either Sirius or Dumbledore return. I also wonder...what would be the point of having Sirius return (I have no hope at all that Dumbledore will)? I could understand his return if the seventh book was not going to be the last book in the series, but it seems to me that at this point, Sirius' return would be an added plot twist that would be unnecessary and even cumbersome within a plot that's going to be full enough, what with Harry having four horcruxes to find and destroy...plus the Dark Lord himself. Rascal, the suggestion about the Polyjuice Potion doesn't make too much sense to me. You're right that Polyjuice Potion comes up at lot in the Harry Potter books (second year for Harry, Ron, Hermione; fourth year for Mad-Eye Moody; fourth year flashback with Crouch Jr. switching with his mother in Azkaban). I think to use a Polyjuice Potion AGAIN would be some real overkill, and overkill isn't JK's style. Fawkes saving someone for another time also falls into the category of overkill for me. He already healed Harry's basilisk wounds in the second book, helped Harry fight Voldemort in the fourth book, and took a direct hit for Dumbledore in the fifth book. On the other hand, JK Rowling admittedly (sadly) did not write these books with my idea of overkill in mind. It is true that Dumbledore switching places with Snape and proceeding as they did would not fall under the category of Snape breaking the promise he made in his Unbreakable Vow because although he promised to "carry out the deed the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform" if Draco appeared that he would fail...Dumbledore murdering him should allieve him of his duty. However, Snape doesn't seem like a very good actor. And would he really die for Dumbledore? He may not be evil, but he's no martyr. I don't think Snape would even die willingly for the Dark Lord. Besides, I don't think Dumbledore himself would have been able to kill Severus. And the bit at the end where Dumbledore begged for Severus...it just seemed too authentic to be forged. It's been a while since I read the book, but what do you mean when you ask why Dumbledore flew to the tower on the "other side of the protective curse [...] the only place in the castle that it would have been effective"? The reason Dumbledore took Harry to that particular entrance was because a Dark Mark had been planted there to draw them to that particular tower. My theory about why Dumbledore froze Harry is so that Harry could not try to help him and potentially die in the process. In this most recent book, Harry and Dumbledore formed a son-father relationship, and Dumbledore acted on a fatherly impulse. But while I've thoroughly exhausted my search for loopholes regarding Dumbledore...I can't pry my mind away from Snape. In my mind, he just cannot be evil because it's too much of a betrayal, within the book and for JK to her fans. I would never accuse her of being sensationalistic, but Sirius dead, Dumbledore dead, Snape a traitor: It's too much for me! Though again, at this point, why would she do it if it weren't for real? What would be the point of having Snape's apparent betrayal end up just a deception? I've said before that I think Harry needs to be alone in the end when he faces Voldemort, and that means no Snape to help him I suppose.... Oh, someone help me! What do you all think? Oh yeah, and Steve! I know you said it a long time ago...but when did JK say we'd find out the reason Dumbledore thought he could trust Snape implicitly?

I began by clicking the link WordWolf generously offered, made my way through several different websites...and ended with the conclusion that Sirius is not returning. From what I've gleaned off of the various websites, it appears JK killed Sirius in the manner that she did on purpose. She wanted him to die unexpectedly and...not on a whim, exactly, but...I'm not too good with words. She killed him in the manner she did to show how sudden and arbitrary death can seem. To bring him back would be to tell kids that when a person close to them dies, there's a chance he or she could return, and that's obviously not true. Furthermore, JK stated that when she began the books, she promised herself that no one she killed would be coming back to life. I tend to think that apparent death, at least for the purposes of these books, denotes actual death. I think this logic also applies to Dumbledore...in addition to the obvious fact that he was buried at the end of the book. I do still wonder if Dumbledore knew what was going to happen to him. And even if Dumbledore knew...did Snape know Dumbledore knew? In essence...Can Snape please not be evil??

Thanks for answering my question. I think I might check a few books out of the library or something about that Death Chamber; it's been haunting me. I don't think Sirius will come back, but I also can't understand why he would die in that particular way if he weren't coming back. Lupin, however, seemed very sure that Sirius was dead when Harry tried to get him from behind the veil. Also, Dumbledore's painting appeared in the Headmaster's office. I'm wondering...would that portrait have all the knowledge Dumbledore possessed? If so, could Harry theoretically use it for advice/training, even though the real Dumbledore is dead?

I have a question for all you guys...the Death Chamber where Sirius was killed -- do you know if that appears anywhere else, in a place unrelated to Harry Potter (i.e. Greek mythology)? Or did JK just come up with it herself?

"Avada Kedavra is unblockable [...] unless the spell is intercepted" So you're saying the spell can't be blocked unless it is. So wait...what's the point you're trying to make?

This is Laleo's daughter. For the record, she did write "spoiler" on the thread (Steve!). I think Snape must have killed Dumbledore because otherwise, why would the immobulus charm have been raised from Harry? If Dumbledore were still alive, there would be no reason for it to be lifted unless Dumbledore did it himself, in which case he probably was not being hibernated anyway. I think it's like Harry says at the end, that he's got to be alone when it all goes down, no parents, no godfather, no Dumbledore, and that's the reason JK killed him. And who says R.A.B is Regulus? That was my first thought, but is there anything to back it up? I thought in OOTP, someone said that Regulus wasn't even high up enough to have been killed by Voldemort personally -- so what are the chances that he'd been able to figure out the Dark Lord's secret? And I thought the horcruxes were: Diary (destroyed) Ring (destroyed) Locket Nagini Hufflepuff's chalice Something of either Ravenclaw or Gryffindor Voldemort himself What's all this about Dumbledore having found one other than the ring and the locket? And if Dumbledore really did have a reason to trust Snape implicitly, well I am very anxious to hear it; I had all my faith in Snape until the second he killed Dumbledore. What a fool I am. Oh, and in reply to WordWolf talking about why Voldemort remained alive in the face of Avada Kedavra, I was under the impression that the reason he was alive is because the spell rebounded off of Harry: When a spell bounces off a person, it becomes weaker, and in the case of Avada Kedavra, not fatal.