Spoiler: What made Rita succesful was that she took truths and stretched them out... but the basic truth inside is still true. Dumbledore killed his sister and did not face his crime, and so he is condemned

strange,

Spoiler: as for the question of why harry had to be the one to kill voldemort, aside from anything else, i think you have to think about consistency of the book, and the structure of fairy tales. we've known that a final showdown between harry and voldemort was coming from the first book on. there is no way that rowling could have written the ending without a duel in which harry and voldemort dueled, with harry coming out on top. the structure of this story is hardly unique; it follows the classic hero/protagonist vs. evil/antogonist theme, where the hero has to overcome obstacles and sometimes face his inner demons before challenging the bad guy and defeating him. frequently he has to accept that he will have to die in order to defeat the bad guy, but persevere through this fear, and usually he somehow survives in a way no one could have predicted.

i still don't see the evil dumbledoor angle you're reading from the story. i see a dumbledore who has a young wizard, who happens to be the only person to face voldemort and live, much less win in a fight with him, who is already targeted straight at voldemort because his parents and friends have been killed by voldemort, and who accepted (when joining the order of the phoenix, if nothing else, and pursuing him to the ministry of magic to try and save his godfather) the fact that he might be killed by voldemort. sure, he could have taken the days or months or years, after he had the curse from the stone horcrux, and attempted to hunt down the othe horcruxes with harry and the gang...but don't forget the he also had to consider what would happen to draco malfoy if he had. voldemort intended to use draco in an assassination attempt, which would have almost definitely killed him; and if it hadn't, voldemort would have killed draco to get the elder wand from him. so he and snape both acted to prevent draco from being killed during the assassination attempt, and using the possibility that snape might be able to destroy the elder wand. there was also the consideration that voldemort had to actually take some of harry's blood into himself during the duel, so that in some way the protection of his mother's love would transfer and destroy voldemort from within. all in all, it looks like harry had to be the one to face voldemort, and he had to die during the duel, and dumbledore hoped that he would survive after the horcrux within harry was destroyed. if harry had just straight up died, that would have been the price they had to pay to defeat voldemort.

however, even with all that - this is a fairy tale and a children's story, written like the disney animation movies so that it is palateable to adults as well. i think if you try to find all the plot holes or would have could have should haves in it...you can definitely find a way to kill it. in the end, the good guys won, the bad guys lost, everyone got to fall in love, one of the twins was saved, the werewolves the lady with the crazy hair all died, harry got reunited with his parents again briefly, and we all were reassured that death is nothing to be afraid of. we even got a matrix-like scene in a train station, complete with out of body experience. for a cheap read over a weekend, i thought it went pretty well and had some interesting plot twists.

I blew through it in about 9 hours yesterday. I don\'t know. I don\'t think it was as good as previous books but I REALLY want to see the movie for some of the action sequences. Give it a LOTR size budget and go to town.

Amen sister!

Spoiler: Nowhere in the book does it say he killed his sister. It says it's a possibility, and Dumbledore even admits it could have been him, but it was an accidental death no matter who did it. I don't get where you're seeing that it says he straight up did it. Yes he feels guilty about it, and yes it could have been him, but does a horrible accident that MIGHT have been his fault make him a "villain?" You mentioned earlier that he didn't even feel bad about it and that he was ruthless with it. You must have missed the entire chapter about Dumbledore feeling immense pain at the death of his sister and guilt beyond measure.

Yes, it was a horrible situation to put Snape in making him end Dumbledore's life, but who else could do it? If nobody else killed him, the wand would go to Voldemort since it was Voldemort's curse that was gonna kill him in 1 year anyway. Would anyone else at Hogwarts kill Dumbledore and not be screwed over for life? Snape was already spying on the Death Eaters. Him killing Dumbledore was the <I>perfect</I> solution to the entire situation.

Spoiler: EVERYWHERE it says he killed his sister

Moving past the current discussion for a moment

Spoiler: Its no secret that I am and always have been a HUGE Severus fan, and I declared quite loudly before the book that if he died I was going to be really pissed, and if he DID die I wanted it to be in some grand way as to show Harry he wasnt the bad guy. Well....having read it now I can honestly say I see that would have been an awful way to do it, the way she did it was SO much better. For Voldy to kill him because of the wand, to me stayed true to the way Voldy had been portrayed. Harry would never have listened to Snape if he'd tried to explain to him what all had gone on, so using the memories was a fantastic way to handle this AND it showed us that Lily and Severus did indeed have a bond long before "school".

It made me so so sad to learn that Snape's worst memory in actuality was calling Lily Mudblood and the image of him camping out in her hall to be able to talk to her just broke my heart.

When he lay dying in the Shrieking Shack and says to Harry "Look...at...me" do you think he was wanting to look at Harry's eyes because they were the same as Lily's or do you think that he, for once, wanted Harry to look at him and see HIM

So what do you think about the way they handled Snape's death?

Spoiler: Another thing, is it just me or is Voldy just beyond stupid? I would think that someone that everyone feared so much, who was supposed to have so much power would have brains too. Or are we supposed to realize that he was so one track minded all his smarts went out the floo network!!

StrangeFamous... I'm sorry, but I just think you are wrong. Sure it may have been a possibility, but nowhere does it say that it's definite. And even if it was him, there's nothing to indicate that it wasn't an accident if that were the case.

Spoiler: I'm with you, Shani. I just *knew* Snape had killed Dumbledore on D's orders. I was surprised to see how harsh he'd been with Snape, tho, back in the day. And it was satisfying to see the way Snape let Harry know the truth. I damn near forgot the Pensieve! Now that you mention it... yeah, I think Snape wanted to see Lily's eyes. They mentioned her eyes again in his kids later.

I also got a smite teary at the kid's name - Albus Severus. Man, is that kid going to have his ass kicked. :p

As for your second point: Spoiler: He isn't brilliant anymore. His soul's been shredded into 7 pieces, and it's been a long time since anyone really fought him. He's scary because he's ruthless and without conscience - he'll just kill because you're there. It's hard for normal people to understand that idea, so he seems invincible.

Agreed, Jess. I think you got to the root of the matter, so to speak, on both counts.

Duel to the death! *runs after the death eaters*

sf, what book did you read?



Spoiler: The tragedy with his sister taught him about himself. He knew he couldn't have power so he repeatedly turned down the position of absolute power: Minister of Magic.



Spoiler: Looking at the wand would tell what the spell was, not the result. All three of them were casting spells at each other.



Spoiler: The only way he could have fought Voldermort on his own would have been for him to kill Harry first. Did you miss the part about Harry ending up as an unintentional horcrux?


Anyways, what a great book and what an ending.

One thing I just LOVED was Harry emasculating Voldermort at the end by calling him Tom Riddle.

Spoiler: I really dont get why so many people want to defend Dumbledore the Sororicide. Harry was the Good Shepherd, and Dumbledore was the bad shepherd... and Voldemoret is the wolf: isnt that the message? That Dumbledore was not man enough for the job because the ends DONT justify the means? Dumbledore could not protect his people, it took a boy to do the job - because despite the massive advantage he had in terms of the Elder wand, he did not have a pure heart. And there was a way to kill Voldemort and not Harry - the deathly hallows... a secret which Dumbledore at best left vague and unspecific clues to so as to satisfy his own twisted morality without actually helping. How hard would it have been to arrange for the Elder wand to come to Harry? How hard to actually pass on the knowledge he had rather than simply leave Harry in Voldemort's grasp?

Spoiler: No, no, no. Dumbldedore's moral ambiguity as a teen is meant to make him more human, and his HUMANITY is what distinguishes him from Voldemort. Yes, he led Harry to the conclusion that he would have to die to separate himself from Voldemort, but Harry made the decision himself. Dumbledore is an illustration of how people change, and how sometimes the greater good requires sacrifice--one Dumbledore himself made, as did Snape, as did Harry in the end. Voldemort was ultimately unprepared for the fact that these men WOULD sacrifice their own lives to defeat him, because Voldemort himself is so lacking in humanity and compassion.

Spoiler: sf, are you sure you understand the whole horcrux thing?

Spoiler: Voldemort is a wolf straight out, Dumbledore is a wolf in sheep's clothing... that is all - of course there are matters of degree - Voldemort was sadistic and killed for pleasure, Dumbledore used more subtle means to manipulate people and gain power, but they are both villians. It doesnt even matter what the sister killer did in his later life, whatever good he might have done does not absolve the sin, because he would not face justice for it.

...

Kutulu, Spoiler: are you sure you understand what it means to murder an innocent child, your own sister, and then to hide the crime? Dumbledore's youthfull dalliance with the idea's of domination of the world by magic are nothing - childish fantasies of a weak willed and intelligent child.... the murder of his sister, this sin hangs around his neck despite everything.

Wow, all this blanking out of things makes this thread look like a DoD release on UFOs.


:lol: :lol:

Spoiler:

i left my copy of the book elsewhere...i'm curious, from the text can it be determined whether there was or was not an investigation by the ministry of magic into dumbledore's sister's death?

I think SF's right on this point, actually.

Spoiler: Anyone more clearly remember the part when Harry realized that Voldemort would discover the snapping of Harry's wand? Iirc, Harry or Hermione explains that Voldemort would examine her wand and discover that the last spell missed its intended target and hit Harry's wand. If I'm not mis-remembering this, then, the wand does show the result of the spell.

But SF, Spoiler: the way I read it, it was a pure accident - not even manslaughter - if Dumbledore was responsible, and Dumbledore didn't examine the wand because he just didn't want to know.

Either way, his responsibility was for an accident, not an intentional killing.

There wasn't because the outside world thought his sister was simply sick, not magically sick.

Spoiler: yeah, but what about in the magical world? surely, they would have known if the death had occurred by magical means or by muggle means, no?

Spoiler: Yes, they had to keep it secret because otherwise she's end up in St. Mungo's or whatever its called.

ahhh...that's right.

As a side note, I think we can stop spoilering posts in this thread at this point. I can't imagine someone coming in here and not assuming there would be spoilers all over the place. It's a discussion thread about a book that's already out. Maybe I'm alone on that sentiment.

I cannot at all see where you're coming from, SF, about Dumbledore. NOWHERE does the text substantiate a clear reading that he was the one who shot the spell that killed his sister. Certainly he feels remorse and feels responsible for the events which led to her death, but-while a purely acceptable reading-is it far from a conclusive reading with which all other readings are inconsistent. Furthermore, I think the entire point of that storyline is exactly what snowy called it: a way to humanize a character who previously had been something of a demi-god. I personally thought that putting that entire storyline in this book weakened it, as soomeone (I forget who, maybe pig?) commented earlier in this thread. That notwithstanding, I do not feel that its purpose was to show that Dumbledore was really a bad guy and really needed to be hated for everything he did. He had some pretty big skeletons in his closet, but he learned from those mistakes (unlike Grindewald and Voldemorte) and dedicated his life to learning, teaching and improving the world. I have a hard time feeling the same enmity for the character that you do.

As for Snape, I think it was the logical conclusion, but I can't say it sits totally well with me. He's basically a bad dude who had his mind changed about which cause to work with because he was unhealthily obsessed with a girl. His cause was completely personal and completely selfish. Dumbledore, when the opportunity presented itself, wisely used his ambitions in furtherance of the greater good, but Snape's conduct throughout the books reinforces the fact that he only did what he did because he personally hated that Voldemorte killed Lily specifically. He showed no love for Harry-taking him at every turn as his father's son and he showed no real devotion to the greater cause of Muggle/magical/pureblood/mudblood equality, living instead only to punish Voldemorte for what he did to Lily. Certainly Dumbledore turned his feelings into great good for the forces against Voldemorte, but Snape raised himself simply from "giant douche" to "douche burglar" in my book.

Finally, I think in this book Rowling found herself caught between her promises, her audience and her story. She promised deaths-and deaths we got, but I don't think they were the deaths that would've made the greatest impact. Of everyone who died, the only person that I really wish could've made it out alive was Fred, and that's only because I like the dynamic the twins have so much. My fiance laments Dobby, but the free house elf seemed to meet a fitting end rescuing his liberator from his former masters. I think the story grew to a place where one of Ron, Hermione, Ginny or Harry should've died and died for good. Her storytelling (close third person over Harry's shoulder) and the fact that the books are nominally for children limits her in being able to not off Harry, but to leave all of R, H and G? Not even maim one of them? All of which resulted in an epilogue that was sickeningly sweet and, to my tastes, totally superfluous. Personally, I think the story would have been stronger with a less "happily ever after" conclusion, which essentially means I'm not the target audience.

Harry Potter has firmly established itself as a cultural phenomenon of our era, and I suppose it remains to be seen what kind of staying power it has. I think inertia will carry it quite a ways, but I don't think it stacks up to Tolkein or Lewis in terms of classic fantasy or Phillip Pullman, George R.R. Martin or Susannah Clarke in terms of modern fantasy either in terms of creativity or in terms of literary value. What HP has repeatedly been lauded for doing is getting people reading again, and I can simply hope that everyone who has become so enamored with Harry's world may find other fantasy worlds out there that take the next step beyond what Rowling can do.

My official review:

I finished it. I'm pretty disappointed. The end fight between Harry and Voldemort was unspectacular. The middle section of the book was boring as fuck too. She crammed too much shit into too small of a book. The events in this book were so numerous that it could have been 3 fuckin books combined into one.

I will say that the realistic portrayal and humanistic qualities given to Dumbledore made the book a lot better (he basically grew up like white trash).

One outstanding element of the book was the one chapter at the end where it was explained that Harry had to die in order to kill Voldemort. The whole scene where Harry had to walk a death path straight to Voldemort and simply die was expertly written and had raw power and emotion attached to it.

It's a fucking shame that the entire sixth book was written about Voldemort's past, why he acts the way he does, and why/how Harry survived the death curse, yet when the final showdown happens Voldemort seems like a damned slapped-on kid's show villain with his stupid 1-liners and dismantled dialogue. Where was the emotion in the final fight between the two most important characters in the entire series. Where was the emotion when Harry enacted revenge upon the most evil person in the entire world. There should have been a no-fighting death sequence like Kill Bill Volume 2. Sometimes raw dialogue filled with thoughts, remorses, and understanding are more entertaining than wand vs wand fights.

Which brings me to another point: nearly all of the fight scenes in this book sucked dick. The action in the other novels (Ministry of Magic fight scene in book 5, Triwizard Tournament in book 4, dementors in book 3, the cave scene with the Inferi in book 6, etc.) was real and had your heart going. In this book it's just boredom.

Oh well, the series combined is a synergy: much more entertaining complete than seperate. I just wish there was more emotion in the final installment.

With mod/admin's blessing, someone should start a HP:tDH [CHOCK FULL OF SPOILERS!] thread

Here are my thoughts on the book.
Spoiler: I was pretty unimpressed with the book. You consider that they continue to use basically 5 spells (or so), against the death eaters. I am glad to see all those years in Hogwarts really taught them soo much! And also you have teens fighting against the evil folk, the Death Eaters and somehow on and off through the series (not only this book) holding their own (excluding final battle).

Now the whole wand theory I would think would not have been such a huge surprise or super secret about a wand choosing his master, or belonging to the victor. But all of a sudden it appears at the end of the series and bam one quick flick and Harry wins. While I knew he would survive I wish there was something more to it then such a simple twist. Of course Harry living and surviving death nothing was mentioned him surviving but perhaps still getting injured by the ‘death.’

That criticism being said, I do have to say I love to read fantasy and in my mind this series was ok at best. But the one thing I do love about it all is the fact that it got millions to read (especially the kids). Oh and the fact that I got to borrow Cynthetiq copy of the book and not pay for it (which I would not have anyways) also helped.

As much as I cried thru this book I cannot, cannot, just cannot agree that there is no emotion in it. I cannot remember the last time ONE book made me cry this much

Interview with JK Rowling today

Here is the "rest of the story" for those that weren't completely satisfied with the epilogue

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19935372/

I just read the book in one long session and I really liked it. I completely disagree with SF (Sorry to bring this discussion back):

Spoiler: Dumbledore was not the black shepherd that SF portrays him as and his sister's death could not be blamed on anyone. Aberforth, Albus' brother, even said that the killing blow could have come from him. There was absolutely no sororicide. Albus was a troubled youngster with thoughts of grandeur. Yes he was selfish as a young man, but that only makes him human.

Yes, he used Snape at the beginning as a way to have an advantage over Voldemorte. But as time went on, a bond grew between them. He even said that he was fortunate to have Snape. He knew what was beneath the surface. The plans didn't come to fruition and Voldemort ended up killing Snape.

Albus, as he had said in their meeting towards the end of the book, that he had known what would happen to Voldemort if he tried to kill Harry once he had Harry's blood in his body. Harry had to think that he would be sacrificing himself. That was the only way for it to work. He knew Harry would not truly die.

How could Albus have tried to kill Voldemort himself? He had made a mistake in letting his grief get to him to try and use the Resurrection Stone to see his family who had spent his entire life grieving over. So he was dying, there was no way around that, and he did what had to be done set actions into motion. And another thing, there is no chance in hell J.K. Rowling would have sent Voldemort to jail. That's beyond ridiculous.

Yes he was human, he made mistakes when he was young. No he did not commit sororicide. No he did not use people for his own purposes. He saw what had to be done and put a plan into motion to save many lives. Was is a horrible thing and with a ruthless killer like Voldemort, casualties must be had. Albus never sent anyone to their death. He knew Harry would not die. He did not want Snape to die.

The main thing is, he was human and the book portrayed that very well.

Also, I am with ShaniFaye about the way Snape died. There couldn't have been a better way. I am a huge fan of Snape (moreso because of Alan Rickman than anything) and I am glad that he got the respect that he deserved from Harry. Yes his intentions may not have been the purest but doing good things for wrong reasons is a hell of a lot better than doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Fred, Tonks, and Lupin were pretty sad though. She did a good job of killing off my three favorite characters: Sirius, Severus, and Remus.

Oh and thanks, Shani, the news about Spoiler: an encyclopedia is pretty exciting to me.

Definitely exciting!

I think Frossbyte is right that anyone who is not done with the book and is reading this thread should expect spoilers left and right, and should not bother reading if they don't want to ruin it.

I just finished the book, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. No, it's not the epic the LOTR was, but it was a fun read and epic in it's own light. The fact that I've been able to strike up conversations about the same book with 10's of people at work, with friends, or my personal favorite, when ordering drinks at the golf course from the cart girl and the lid on the cup would not go on and my friend said "Reparo" and I looked at him with the "oh-my-god-you-fucking-dork" expression on my face, and the cute drink-cart girl said "Oh, I love those books, have you finished the last one yet?!". The last time I had a discussion about any book with a group of people was my English class in college, and even then, that was a discussion between the teacher and the five people who actually read the book, with the other 20 trying to come up with something constructive from the cliff notes they read.

It's a very "Here's a children's book happy ending". It might fit crudely, but it fits. Even the "greatest" wizard Dumbledore screws up, but in the end, even though he might've been selfish he realized what he needed to do "for the greater good", and that was not bringing wizards to be all powerful rulers of the world. It was bringing peace to the world.

All in all. It's a children's story. I can't wait to read the books to my boy as bedtime stories, and come up with my own voices for the characters, and what a smile it will put on my face to hear him say "Can you read one more chapter, please?!".

All I can say is thanks to my friend for giving me the first three books when I went overseas and telling me "I know you think these are stupid, but read them when you're bored, they're a fun read". And thank JK Rowling for providing myself a reason to say "I can go to bed later, I want to find out what happens next" multiple times.

I'm just afraid that the 7th movie will jump through things quickly (like the 5th) and not touch on the importance of some things and leave those who have just watched the movies and not read the books wondering why everyone else in the theater is crying because Snape just keeled over.

<embed FlashVars='config=http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/xml/data_synd.jhtml?vid=90270%26myspace=false' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/syndicated_player/index.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#006699' width='340' height='325' name='comedy_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

I'm like Colbert, I'm still reading!

Why would "spoilers" ruin the experience?

"You Americans are so adverse to knowledge it may become something of ridicule."--attributed


I couldn't care less about the American custom to "hoard" knowledge and keep secrets; if there is something I learn about other cultures, such as Afghani and Italian, I would actually like to hear how a movie ends, so in anticipation to the awaited scene it becomes that much more tense. Such is the associational society, I suppose.

On the subject of Jestream's threadjack, I spoiled the flute/pussy joke from American Pie for my high school girlfriend and heard about what a bad person I was for doing it for the next year until we broke up. If you ever saw the videos of people who yelled stuff like, "SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE" at the midnight release of the last book, you can see how crazy people get about not wanting to know.

There's something to be said for the thrill of finding everything out on yoru own. I think with HP and Lost people have gotten pretty obsessive about it, though.

Yeah, I didn't dare click on this thread until I had finished the book, plain and simple. Which took me nearly two weeks after it came out, since my aunt was bringing it from the US (a week after it came out), and I have been hosting her and my uncle every day since then, in Iceland... so stealing away to read a chapter here and there, when ktspktsp wasn't sleeping. But then I couldn't stand it!!! I was about 300 pages from the end last night and had to put on my headlamp and read under the covers (so he could sleep... but it was kind of a throwback to my childhood reading-under-the-covers habit :) ), which I did until about 4am... FINISHED IT!!!

Okay, that said. I enjoyed the book. But I have four main comments.

1) There were WAY too many "near-death experiences" for Harry and his crew. It was like "Oh, oh oh o hoh!!! he's gonna die! Oh wait, not this time." I started feeling like it was the "never cry wolf" story... I sort of figured he wouldn't die, after a while.

2) There was a LOT of skipping around with the plot, making up for gaps in the story with miraculous "discoveries" to sort of shorten up the storyline... I didn't like that too much. It felt like she was leaving too much out, to get to the end... I would have preferred a longer book, if necessary. Like when Hermione and Ron go down to the Chamber of Secrets, it takes about a paragraph! And when Harry faces dementors and realizes that the locket keeps him from producing a Patronus... that was one sentence, when it could have been written out so much better. I dunno. I like detail!! And not detail about the 3 of them Apparating and Disapparating all over the countryside, for no real reason (no plot progress during all those parts). That could have been shortened, as others have said.

3) How the HELL did Neville get the sword? Maybe I just missed something huge, but last I remember, Griphook had it and it was stuck in Gringotts. Then he pulls it out of the Sorting Hat and ta-da! All is good. Anyone follow that?

4) I KNEW Snape was a good guy!!! I KNEW IT, dammit. I really thought there was SOME reason it was him who killed Dumbledore, but I was losing hope throughout the 7th book (as JK Rowling intended, I suppose) because Snape kept killing/injuring "good" people... but I always believed in him, because I trusted Dumbledore's judgment as well. But with so much shit coming down about Dumbledore, I was getting ready to put the blame on Snape, until the scene where he gets killed... and there it went. I KNEW IT. :) Snape is redeemed.

I said all along that there was something behind Dumbledore's death and that he'd asked Snape to do it before hand.....so hah I was right hehehe

The sword is really easy to figure out if you go back to COS....it was explained that any true gryffindor would have the aid of the sword when it was needed. It came from the hat in COS so it makes perfect sense that when Neville needed it that it came from the hat again, it also goes to show that what Griphook said about them being the true owners of the sword and the wizards were just "renting it" (cant remember the exact phrase) was wrong. so yeah I followed it no problem

abaya: Spoiler: I was baffled until I checked later: Voldemort summons the sorting hat from Hogwart's and gives the spiel about how everyone's a Slytherin from now on. I can't remember the details, but he ends up putting it on Neville's head and setting it on fire. Remember - the sorting hat gives help to those who need it. Harry got the sword from it in the same way in Chamber Of Secrets. Neville later pulls the sword from the sorting hat. It's in there.

The sword in the vault was a fake sword. Snape had the real one all along, it only left Hogwarts long enough to be placed by Snape in the icy pond to be retrieved and destroy a horcrux or two. Then when Moldy Voldy decided to burn the sorting hat Longbottom pulled the sword out to do his little diddy with Nagini.

umm...how do you figure that? They had the real sword from the time Ron got it out of the pond until Griphook took it when they went to get the horcrux out of the vault....Griphook being a goblin knew that the one they had at Shell Cottage was the real one (especially since he told them the one in the vault was fake)

Ownership is a matter of perspective. The goblins believe that when the original owner of a goblin-made item dies that the item should be returned to the goblins. People, on the other hand believe that when you pay for something it is yours and can be passed on to others as you see fit.

I just finished the book, savored each chapter, and reread a chapter or two to make sure I wasn't missing something. I don't know how to do the spoiler tags, but I doubt they are needed at this late date.

The great charm of JR's series of good vs. evil lies in her multifacited characters. None of them are purely good or evil, including Tom Riddle. Harry was a petulant, self-absorbed teenager at times, Snape could still shed tears for his lost love, and Dumbledore's avarice for the dh's as a teen, became his undoing as an adult. Every character was flawed in some way which gave them greater depth and interest.

The ending met my expectations of redemption, and good over evil. The later books in the series seem a bit dark for children, but I agree with Charlatan that they can be a good source for discussion about life.

I fully enjoyed my fantasy escape that the HP series provided over the years. I will leave any criticism to the parents of the children for which it was intended.

Well, okay, I can buy this... but then why was it such a big deal to "lose" it to Griphook, if they knew they could get it back again when "needed?"

I agree with Elphaba that the later books were rather dark, but I liked that about them... even for kids, these are good lessons to learn about how "good" people go bad, and death in general. Much better than glossing everything over all the time.

And damn, I love that Rowling used words like "sychophantic" in the 7th book. Yay for children's writers who don't stray away from tough vocabulary... I hope all the kids who didn't know that word, stopped to look it up in the dictionary!! (It was an SAT word when I took the test 12 years ago.) :)

Honestly? I think that was something for the readers to remember....it happened so far back and they may not have truly realized what it meant....otherwise they would have tired to "call" for it when they realized they needed it to "kill" the locket instead of Harry having to go in the pond to try to retrieve it

Okay, so I just got home from the Open Book Tour of J.K. Rowling at Carnegie Hall...

She said in the Q&A session that she always saw Dumbledore as gay, and no not in the British way but in the Rainbow Flag way.

It was a nice reading, I didn't finish it so it did create some spoilers for me, but eh, whatever. I was in Carnegie Hall for a nice night.

I think the greatest thing about these books as children's literature is that they age with children. The first book is appropriate for younger readers, and the last for older ones, and the books in between fit along the spectrum Rowling has created. It's masterful.

And Cyn, I am incredibly jealous of your chance to go see J.K. Rowling. She has created an amazing amalgamation of fantasy and references to Western culture in the Harry Potter series.

This was the second time I got to see her. I'm quite lucky in that respect. First time in Radio City Music Hall last year and now Carnigie Hall. It is really amazing to see all the kids cheering about reading a book.

Spoiler: The noteworthy point is that Dumbledore murdered his sister, betrayed Harry, and threw Snape to the wolves. I dont really care who he fancies

The "truth" about the character is whatever the AUDIENCE reads it as. There is nothing in the text besides the fact that Dumbledore was never romantically involved with anyone to substantiate a reading that he is gay. That fact, of course, doesn't substantiate that he was straight, either, just that he never had a romantic relationship with anyone that we know about.

If you need to tell your audience a basic fact about a main character, you've done a bad job as an author. Think the Dumbledore/Snape genre is going to get WAY out of control with this revelation though. Hmmm, maybe it was Snape/Dumbledore with Dumbledore acting as a proxy for Lily. Who knows?

I guess all this question/answer nonsense bothers me from a literary perspective. The story ought to tell itself and if it doesn't, that means that the story is either poorly written or the fact is generally not relevant to the course of the story and the audience may decide on its own what they think. Though I don't buy all of the tenants of "New Criticism," I think their stance on intentional fallacy is right on the money. (Intentional Fallacy) Given ambiguities in a work of art, the artist is just as welcome to anyone else about what the art says or means, but his interpretation should not be privileged without textual backing.

Did we ever know if Professor Mcgonagall had/has a relationship with anyone?
No.
Did we want to know?
No
Does it matter to the stories that we didn't know?
Not at all.

Same goes for Professor Dumbledore.

This inclusion was just to keep the world talking about HP, imo.

Y'all are not going to believe this, but last night (after reading this thread), I had a dream that Gellert Grindelwald showed up to a party that ktspktsp and I were hosting. It was weird as hell... he showed up at the door in all his wizarding finery, long white beard, etc. In my dream state, I kept thinking, "Wow, so this is Dumbeldore's gay partner..." :lol: I don't remember much else, but man... my subconscious needs to get a life. :D

Spoiler: The villian Dumbledore's claim that he "may" have cast the killing blow is the most pathetic statement of all which he makes, the ultimate proof that for every second of his life he refused to face up to the murder of his sister which he knew he was guilty off. It is known that he would have examined his wand after the duel and have been able to tell if the killing curse came from it or not... if it had not he would say it had not. The fact he claims to be unsure is proof of his guilt. To me The sorrorocide is more contempable than even Voldemort in some ways. Voldemort certainly commits far greater crimes, but in a way at least he understands he is a monster. Dumbledore is the ultimate hypocrite, hiding behind lies and deception his great crime. I understand that he did not intentionally strike the killing blow... but he DID strike it, and he DID refuse to face up to his crime. By lying about it he condemns himself. His sister's innocent blood stains every other action of his life. He cannot clean his hands of it.

Well said. The idea that Dumbledore is gay is titillating to some extent, but in the end, if JK Rowling had to *tell* everyone about this... yeah, she just wants attention. :) And she's gonna get it from those Evangelicals, watch out!!! :lol:

A fellow Harry freak at work and I have been discussing this the past couple of days, and we're both disappointed. It seems too much like a publicity stunt and that it is unnecessary information that cheapens the stories. Meh.

I know J.K. has pushed aside rumours that she is going to write prequels, but this Dumbledore "revelation" is a pretty good seed for a young(er) Dumbledore series.

It's funny but as soon as i read the Grindlewald part in the last book, I was thinking that Dumbledore was gay but I dismissed it because it didn't really matter.

So I wasn't surprised to find out that he was gay, just surprised that it would be brought up. That said, all sorts of writers have created back stories for their characters. The thing is most authors don't have nearly the amount of scrutiny that this series does so authors don't generally get the opportunity to reveal these backstories (and if they do, people don't generally care).

I think this is the key to it. A good author will frequently create a full backstory to a character in the process of creating a believable, well-rounded individual. Much of that backstory will never make it into the main narrative because it's not particularly relevant to the story. Dumbledore's orientation is only relevant in a peripheral sense, as it helps to explain why he was so tolerant of Grindelwald's obvious tendency towards (shall we say) the unsavoury. It is important, I think, to also make the distinction of Dumbledore at 17 versus the Dumbledore the readers are familiar with; at that young age he wasn't possessed of the vast experience and wisdom that so informed his character, which lead to him making some poor choices with dire consequences. For all Harry's exclamations that he and Dumbledore were the same age, Harry also makes poor choices informed largely by the same flaw, if one could call it such. Certainly nothing to the same magnitude, but then Harry's early life would prevent that I'd think.

I'm not particularly surprised by this. I also don't care very much. It doesn't really impact the character significantly, or the overall story.

Spoiler: although in fairness Harry is not a murderer. Harry did things which were wrong, but he basically had a strong and good heart... he was able to do the job which the Sorroricide was not man enough to do for this reason... No one would ever say Dumbledore was not incredibly clear-seeing despite his crime, he understood that in his thirst for power Voldemort ignored the oldest and most important magic, that he scorned knowledge in relation to brute exercise of power... and that Harry had the strength of heart to walk through the fire and destroy him. Harry did not destroy Voldemort out of hate, but out of pity. The strongest and best statement made by Dumbledore in the whole series was that Harry was better than him. Whatever else he was, he understood this... he understood that Harry WAS capable of doing the job he was not capable of himself

SF... I still think you are grasping at straws on the whole Sorroricide thing. I am willing to concede that he *may* have fired the shot that killed his sister which carries its own level of guilt and shame.

That part of the story has not been revealed. Any definitive declaration of who actually killed his sister has not been made clear. You can read into it as much as you like but I think you are reading too much into it.

Besides, even if he *did* kill her, it was an accident. It would be the same as if a hot-headed street racer crashed his car while his sister was in the passenger seat. He is responsible but it is hardly sorroricide.

Ok, let's cut the spoiler tags.

let us only talk of facts.

1 - Dumbledore was in a three way fight in which his sister was killed. FACT

2 - It is KNOWN, it is understood within the logic of JK's world, that it is possible to interogate a wand to see the spells that were cast from it, especially a killing spell, where a life is taken. This is shown in an early book in Harry's first conflict with Voldemort. It is also shown after the Quidditch WC when they can tell which wand cast the "dark mark" fireworks

3 - Dumbledore states that he MAY have killed his sister.

Let's consider this. If the German wizard had killed her, for what reason would Voldemort lie about this, even in his last essence as it was cast into death.. why would he lie to protect the German wizard and say it was "unknown" and that "it may have been him"

Is it realistic that Dumbledore does not know? Can we take it at face value? we KNOW his brother could not cast the killing spell, did not have the power too.. we KNOW that Dumbledore examined his own wand... so it was either him or Griswold (sic?) - do we suppose that Dumbledore is unsure about this?

His statement that it "may" have been him but he isnt sure but he blames himself anyway is pathetic, miserable, scornful, the purest trash. He KNOWS he is guilty and with snivelling self-pity begs for forgiveness without having the stomach to confess his crime.

I KNOW that Dumbledore did not deliberately kill his sister. It was an accient, a killing spell, and unforgivable curse cast in a moment of hate in the wrong direction... but he was not man enough to confess to the blood that was upon him. Once Harry was involved in a fight for his life which involved his step brother (who he hated)... Harry stood firm and faced his demons rather than running and abandoning a brother who he despised.

Dumbledore murdered his sister with his own filthy hands and allowed her name to be dragged through the mud as suicide. No wonder his brother punched him out. He shoud have killed him.


Dumbledore was not evil, but he was a murderer, a sorroricide, his sisters blood is upon him and he condemned. He DID throw Snape to the wolves. He DID use Harry... he was prepared to cast Harry aside as "colletral damage" in his great war.

But Harry was better than him and Voldemort... both who were stronger wizards.... Dumbledore had more knowledge, Voldermort more power... but Harry's strength of heart, his basic courage and love, sets him above both of the villians of this serious... Voldemort the demon, the monster, the snake; and Dumblefore the bad shepherd, Dumbledore the deciever, Dumbledore the sorroricide.

SF, two things:

Accident != Murder. Dumbledore was not a murderer. It's reasonable to believe that he accidentally killed his sister. It's not reasonable to believe that he murdered her.

I'm still not seeing the immense importance of an absent confession. Far more important than confession is penance, and Dumbledore did spend most of his life in opposition to the greatest evil in the magical world. Yes, he threw Snape to the wolves, but Snape himself was a man in need of repentance and Dumbledore provided him with such an opportunity. Despite Snape's untimely death and Dumbledore's hallows foolishness, both proved instrumental in the downfall of Voldemort.

I'll take that over the magic two words anyday.

Uhm, OK. Did you have a better plan for getting rid of Voldemort?

The ends justify the means, huh?

I am sure this is exactly what Dumbledore would have said, if he had the stomach to really face the man he was - that all his crimes were for a "Greater Good"... of course, the problem is, its Dumbledore who decides what the greater good is, and people like Snape who have to die for it.

You seem to be advocating inaction in the face of great and terrible evil.

I seem to think that the ends DO NOT always justify the means.

Both Voldemort and Dumbledore disagreed.

__

I agree, 100% that Dumbledore did not intentionally kill his sister. He did not commit PRE-MEDITATED murder in this case.

And I 100% believe he struck the killing blow, that he knew that he did it, and he did not face up to the truth or admit that her blood was on his hands. His crime is more than anything refusing to face what he did.

It would have been easy for Harry to leave Dudley to the dementors... he did not. It was hard for Dumbledore to face his guilt... and so he did not.

I judge the two of them thusly.