|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:22 pm
Last night, I thought about a quote that always sticks out in my mind when I think of Dumbledore,
"After all, death is but the next great adventure."
HP&The Sorcerer's Stone P. 297
Dumbledore died. Death, the next great adventure.
I told this to my mom, wondering if that will mean anything in the last book, because, Dumbledore died.
Today, my mom came home from work and said to me, "I was thinking about you today, and what you said about Dumbledore." She mentions how Harry Potter, the basic idea without detail, is a lot like Lord Of The Rings. (She has read LOTR way before HP yet she still likes HP a lot, so this isn't a bash on HP or J.K. Rowling.) She says that Gandalf, in the LOTR Trilogy, dies and comes back. Dumbledore, being like Gandalf in comparasion to the basic story line, might come back. What if that is true?
Also, I thought about that more, and realized, if Dumbledore come's back, like Gandalf, will he also be more powerful? Will Dumbledore be the one to defeat Lord Voldemort since Harry's and Voldemort's wands will not work properly against each other?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:11 pm
Dumbledore can not kill Voldemort, cause of the prophecy. Do I need to quote what it clearly states?
And if Dumbledore does come back, that would be really cheesy and too LOTR. Personally, I'm not a fan of LOTR. I think Harry's going to have a fight with Voldemort one-on-one. It would add dramatic build-up if Harry fights Voldemort alone, not with Dumbledore shouting orders behind his back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:42 pm
I understand where you are coming from, but what about the wands not working against each other, as someone mentioned in a topic here about that being in the book, something we are overlooking. How will they be able to kill one or the other if their wands will not work properly against each other?
Also, the main record of the prophecy was destroyed. Who knows what happened to Dumbledore's memories, or things for the pensive, whatever you would like to call them, since he died...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:39 pm
I don't think Harry is going to get rid of Voldemort in a conventional way (ie, not with his wand) because its expected and Harry is untainted, he can't conjure the hate to perform a killing curse.
I think the reason that Dumbledore had to go is like pyrolila said, it won't be Harry's victory if Dumbledore is giving him directions. Harry needs to learn to do things for himself and to take control. Untill now he has followed what Dumbledore told him to do, he will now need to vanquish Voldemort himself, without any direct help from Dumbledore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:46 am
It's an archetypal fantasy role, that of the aging mentor, whose last mission is to train the one who will come after, the next hero, and then pass out of sight or hand over the torch, leaving the hero to forge their own path and finish what was started.
Gandalf was one example of this, but not the best example. Because he came back, and also didn't really pass any torches. However Belgarath from David Eddings' Belgariad and Mallorean series', Macros from Raymond Feist's Riftwar Saga, and Moiraine from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time are, because they all either died or retired, leaving behind their student to take the initiative, grab the reins.
This is the case with Dumbledore and Harry, and why he had to die.
At the end of Half-Blood Prince, we saw a profound change in Harry. We watched him come to the realisation that he no longer had a guardian, a protector, a mentor to hide behind. Dumbledore's death showed him that he would have to be the one to take control of his life, and take up the hunt for Voldemort and his Horcruxes himself. It forced him to take the initiative.
The entire point of this post is to say that Dumbledore can't come back. He has handed the reins to Harry now and there is no way that he can come back without making a mockery of Harry's growth. The entire point of his death, I think, was to give Harry that growth. He died for a purpose. There would be no purpose to his coming back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:43 pm
Acidic Cynic The entire point of this post is to say that Dumbledore can't come back. He has handed the reins to Harry now and there is no way that he can come back without making a mockery of Harry's growth. The entire point of his death, I think, was to give Harry that growth. He died for a purpose. There would be no purpose to his coming back. Exactly. And much in the same way that Jo was incredibly offended by the "Lily is really still alive" and the "James swapped bodies with Lupin" contingents, daring them to justify how these people who cared so much for Harry that they would--and did--die to protect him could willingly abandon him, I am a bit outraged by the "Dumbledore faked his death" brigade. That's a cruelty that is more out-of-sync with Dumbledore than his creating a Horcrux, to use an extreme and equally laughable analogy.
Part of it, and here I risk tangenting, is the idea that many people have that Snape murdering Dumbledore is incompatible with Snape being ultimately one of the good guys. Some people just miss Dumbledore. But many want Dumbledore to be alive solely so that Snape can be good, and it has very little to do with the Headmaster personally. And I don't see the conflict.
To argue that Dumbledore--who has spent the entire novel explaining that he is of lesser value and importance than the boy--would not lay down his life for a greater good demeans the great man's memory. If Snape is better able to serve the greater good as Dumbledore's killer, or if one or both of Dumbledore's Horcrux-hunt-inflicted injuries was, indeed, a mortal wound, or one of countless other if statements can all suffice to exculpate Snape. I'm particularly partial to the idea that Dumbledore preferred to die at Snape's hand than to die at the hands of an (thus far, mostly) innocent boy, a boy who is in his care. That even for the most unworthy of his students--to protect the integrity of Draco's soul, Dumbledore would be willing to die.
Maybe Snape killed Dumbledore to save his own neck. Maybe he did it to save Draco. Maybe he was following one last order; the most difficult he had ever been given. I had to read that paragraph several times. But I never once doubted that Severus Snape was--and is--Dumbledore's man through and through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:18 am
i_heart_ron I'm particularly partial to the idea that Dumbledore preferred to die at Snape's hand than to die at the hands of an (thus far, mostly) innocent boy, a boy who is in his care. That even for the most unworthy of his students--to protect the integrity of Draco's soul, Dumbledore would be willing to die.
That was beautifully put, and I hadn't looked that as a possibility before, shame on me. *Slaps own wrist*
I think I have a post somewhere that I need to add that to, if you don't mind. I'll quote it and give you credit, don't worry.
No wait, scratch that. The post was about whatmight have happened to Dumbledore, not why it happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:08 pm
Acidic Cynic The entire point of this post is to say that Dumbledore can't come back. He has handed the reins to Harry now and there is no way that he can come back without making a mockery of Harry's growth. The entire point of his death, I think, was to give Harry that growth. He died for a purpose. There would be no purpose to his coming back. Hm... I like that idea. That is kind of why I had thought that it was good for Sirius to die, well, not good, but it will have helped Harry grow up. Also, about the quote I mentioned, do you, or anyone else of this guild who wishes to answer, think that that quote will have a big meaning in the coming book?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:29 pm
1969 In My Head Acidic Cynic The entire point of this post is to say that Dumbledore can't come back. He has handed the reins to Harry now and there is no way that he can come back without making a mockery of Harry's growth. The entire point of his death, I think, was to give Harry that growth. He died for a purpose. There would be no purpose to his coming back. Hm... I like that idea. That is kind of why I had thought that it was good for Sirius to die, well, not good, but it will have helped Harry grow up. Also, about the quote I mentioned, do you, or anyone else of this guild who wishes to answer, think that that quote will have a big meaning in the coming book?
I'm not sure...I think it was more to give us Dumbledore's views on death, and of course in context he was reassuring Harry about Flamel and Perinelle's deaths. Also, she seems to be implying that yes, in her books there is life after death, as shown by that comment of Dumbledore's and Nearly-Headless Nick's conversation with Harry after Sirius fell through the veil. Oh, and Luna's comments to Harry about the whispering behind the veil.
Harry might think about that quote in the next book, while he is gearing himself up for some life-threatening situation, but other than that I cant envisage any other context in which it might come up.
Acidic Cynic Gandalf was one example of this, but not the best example. Because he came back, and also didn't really pass any torches. However Belgarath from David Eddings' Belgariad and Mallorean series', Macros from Raymond Feist's Riftwar Saga, and Moiraine from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time are, because they all either died or retired, leaving behind their student to take the initiative, grab the reins.
Oh, crap. I just looked back at that and realised that all the signs point to Moiraine coming back too, with the prophetic dreams Egwene has been having and Thom getting the letter from her saying she is a captive of the Aelfinn. Or Eelfinn, I can never tell them apart.
Gah! I just remembered they rescued Macros too! When he disappeared he was really becoming absorbed into the mind of his God, and Pug ripped him free to help fight the war. scream So, okay, how about Yoda from Star Wars? He died right? Didn't come back? Thank god. If I ever write fantasy, remind me to make sure my characters stay dead, okay? Because all this, "Surprise! I was alive all along and now I've come back tada!" s**t is real old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:52 am
Acidic Cynic If I ever write fantasy, remind me to make sure my characters stay dead, okay? Because all this, "Surprise! I was alive all along and now I've come back tada!" s**t is real old. totally; one of the best fantasy trilogies I ever read in my life did that, and it totally messed with me; it was such a horrible, witnessed, public death, and I cried for days because I had the hugest crush on this fictional character, and then, at the end, some random dude stands up, and he's like, oh, by the way, I'm that other guy who faked his death a book and a half ago, I've just been chilling out 3 feet away from you in disguise since then. Gross. sorry, slightly off-topic rant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:23 am
i_heart_ron Acidic Cynic If I ever write fantasy, remind me to make sure my characters stay dead, okay? Because all this, "Surprise! I was alive all along and now I've come back tada!" s**t is real old. totally; one of the best fantasy trilogies I ever read in my life did that, and it totally messed with me; it was such a horrible, witnessed, public death, and I cried for days because I had the hugest crush on this fictional character, and then, at the end, some random dude stands up, and he's like, oh, by the way, I'm that other guy who faked his death a book and a half ago, I've just been chilling out 3 feet away from you in disguise since then. Gross. sorry, slightly off-topic rant.
Oh my god that sounds like the biggest cop-out ever.
Disguised for one and a half books? Eeeewww, kill that author...At least Feist was inventive and never said Macros was dead, he just disappeared into thin air and you assumed, and he did kill Macros off in the end so that he stayed dead... Tolkien had already written in the Silmarillion that Gandalf was Anar or Valar I forget which so I knew he wouldn't die anyway...Jordan is making Moiraine's rescue from the tower of Ghenjei some of the main character's sole task for the next book and dropping prophecies about her return left right and center... But public excecution? In disguise?
Let me guess: this author brought him back to deal with a problem he wasn't inventive enough to solve on his own, right?
Bless you Yoda, for your uncompromising deadness.
And now back to the topic at hand, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:51 pm
Acidic Cynic Let me guess: this author brought him back to deal with a problem he wasn't inventive enough to solve on his own, right? And now back to the topic at hand, I guess. on tangent for a brief moment: No. Granted, it's been a good (oh crap, I feel old!) ten of fifteen years since I read this particular series, but as I recall, the character was brought back solely to facilitate happy good feelings for the rest of the characters, and a happy ending all round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:34 am
i_heart_ron Acidic Cynic Let me guess: this author brought him back to deal with a problem he wasn't inventive enough to solve on his own, right? And now back to the topic at hand, I guess. on tangent for a brief moment: No. Granted, it's been a good (oh crap, I feel old!) ten of fifteen years since I read this particular series, but as I recall, the character was brought back solely to facilitate happy good feelings for the rest of the characters, and a happy ending all round.
I am now building a shrine to the death of Yoda. It was sad, but it was FINAL. Take note, other authors. Just because you wrote the book, doesn't mean you can kill off your characters and then bring them back again whenever you feel like it. Unless you are extremely good at it, and not just desperate for a happy ending or a solution to a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:45 pm
Acidic Cynic Unless you are extremely good at it, and not just desperate for a happy ending or a solution to a problem. That is partially why I think Dumbledore may come back, as well as the fact a lot of stuff is like LOTR... For a solution to a problem. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:15 am
Dumbledore must not come back.
I refuse to let him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
