[HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die.

[Jesta Hijinx]

No: HPFGUIDX 41102




> > Marcus (who isn't saying that Dumbledore won't die, just that he
> > doesn't have to.)
>
>Well, "have to" is pretty strong.  Nothing "has to" happen unless JKR
>makes it so.  But you must admit that there was a lot of
>foreshadowing of Dumbledore looking older than ever in GoF.  And
>Dumbledore spoke of death in Book 1 as the "next adventure."
>
>But I would argue that Dumbledore does need to go. Just like Obi Wan
>had to go.  It's the only way for Harry to meet his *destiny* --
>whatever the heck that is!
>
>Maybe not die, but at least be unavailable.  (re: Gandalf)
>
>I believe that the foreshadowing in GoF is indicative of Dumbledore's
>death.  (I should look up all the instances, it's more than just one!)
>
>Heidi R.
>
I have an even less popular view.  I think that something sinister is going 
to happen with Dumbledore before the end of the series.  I don't think the 
"glimmer of triumph" was benevolent or for good purposes, nor was its 
concealment.  I had a strong negative resonance from that episode when I 
read it, and it has never gone away with subsequent re-reads.

Dumbledore's death may be part of the plan, but I think it's going to be 
more of an "Obi Wan/Vader" duel scenario, or even "Luke/Vader".

And wouldn't it be nice if the denouement JKR has in mind actually bore no 
resemblance to any other current work of fiction in popular circulation, but 
was something entirely different?  ;-)

Felinia



_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com