Posted on 07/17/2005 5:16:14 PM PDT by grellis
THIS THREAD IS INTENDED FOR READERS THAT HAVE COMPLETED THE BOOK! If you have not yet read the book, consider yourself warned: There will be spoilers on this thread.
For my fellow FReepers who have no intention of reading the book but would like to discuss the more controversial issues related to the work, I am asking you as politely as I can: DO NOT HIJACK THIS THREAD. We are all members of this forum and as such, it is not up to me to disallow anyone from participating in the discussion. That is why I am asking you--please do not hijack this thread. If you would like to discuss the more controversial aspects of the book, maybe you could start your own thread and ping us over there. If we are interested, we'll come.
Rowling said eagle-eyed readers of the current novel would find clues about the next one in the final pages.
I know it was a poll question on her site, but I couldn't find any old poll responses over there. She says it was a complete and total accident that she named another character with Lily's last name.
i think DD will be a big part of the seventh book. Harry says twice in the last chapter that Dumbledore will only be gone from the school when none there are loyal to him. He will help Harry a lot, at least from the portrait.
Rutabega brought up an interesting point earlier, and I've been thinking about it, but I don't know what to make of it. If VM has split his soul every time he has made a horcrux, well...what exactly are the implications? If the first horcrux received 50% of his then-intact soul, would destroying that particular horcrux weak his grasp on immortality? And, since he has now diminished his soul seven times AND already lost, what...two of his horcruxes (and shouldn't that be horcruces?!) well, where was I going with this? Diminshment! Won't he be relying on his Death Eaters almost completely now? He seems to have put himself in a perilous position.
That is interesting. I was under the impression (ok, I assumed and never gave it much thought) that they were all equal parts. Since a murder had to take place, I just assumed that the act of such a dark deed was where the power to make the horcrux came from. Yes it comes from the soul of the murderer, but also from the dark art act of murder. Maybe the murder is the energy (evil energy. Maybe part the horcrux also comes from part of the soul of the person that was murdered....Of course, I probably don't have the faintest idea :)
I totally agree.
Actually, although the idea that each successive Horcrux would contain a smaller and smaller portion of Voldemort's soul is gleefully logical, the book actually leads us to believe that each Horcrux contains an equal portion of the soul.
Dumbledore says, "However, a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul. The ring is no longer a Horcrux." (see the bottom of page 503)
Here is what my friend has to say:
I DON'T THINK DUMBLEDORE IS DEAD.
I think he Horcruxed himself into (a) Godric Gryffindor's sword (prominently mentioned toward the end), (b) Fawkes (Harry thinks he sees a phoenix flying up from the tomb, and phoenixes can restore the dead), and/or (c) Harry himself.
He and Snape had made this their plan, and that's what their argument, overheard by Harry or was it Hagrid, was all about. So Snape is a sort of triple agent, let alone double agent, and he was doing DD's bidding all along, so V. would trust him completely.
Yes to Regulus Black as the destroyer of the Locketcrux and substituter of the Fauxcrux, and yes to the locket found in the Black house while cleaning was underway. But where is the locket now? Does Kreacher have it? Did Mundungus steal it? Hmmmm....
Even though Horcruxes are the darkest of Dark Magic, my friend seems to think that there is a "Light" version that Dumbledore would have used. I don't know if I agree, but I do know it's an interesting theory.
Wouldn't DD have had to murder someone in order to make a Horcrux? That is what Slughorn says...
LOL, I wrote that quote to someone earlier about why/how DD's hand turned black. OY!
I don't think DD would have created a horcrux, not even a "Horcrux-lite." He more or less said that the splitting of a soul was (here's a word I'm getting tired of reading) an abomination.
And, speaking of Voldemort's Horcruxes, some seem to believe that Harry's scar may be one.
I don't think so. I think the creation of a Horcrux has to be intentional, and Voldemort's intention that night was for Harry to die, not to live with a scar.
Bueller?
Man, I love getting credit for that cool theory, but I'm afraid that it wasn't me--it was a few under my drunken rambling about Perseus Evans and Ginny being a horcrux! Sorry! I think it was dutyhonorcountry, post 275. (But we can pretend I said something profound, if you want!)
there's a thought.
367 posted on 07/19/2005 3:04:18 PM EDT by ccmovrwc
I stand corrected! And yet I still wonder about it.
And I couldn't believe that Neville was gay.
(not that there's anything wrong with that)
TS
No, he couldn't do this unless Dumbledore was guaranteed to be dead. For that matter, had there been no witnesses to the event, Snape would not have had to reveal himself at all. There was a possibility that Evil Snape could continue onward at Hogwarts for better or ill.
TS
Immobilze, maybe, but not kidnap. He was rushing out with Malfoy (which was priority one because his life did depend upon it) and they were apparating once off the grounds. Snape would have had to forcing teleport someone against their will, which doesn't sound like it would've been an easy thing to do.
TS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.