Dumbledore does not HAVE to die.

[prefectmarcus]

No: HPFGUIDX 39405

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" <pipdowns at e...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" <prefectmarcus at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> > 
> > In order to be the most heroic, Harry does have to face Voldemort 
> > alone without Dumbledore, but the big D doesn't have to be dead 
for 
> > that to happen.  Harry has always managed to face Voldemort 
without 
> > Dumbledore up to now.  Dumbledore was even "gotten rid of" 
> completely 
> > in CoS, if you recall.
> 
> ::Ahem::
> 
> Arguing against  'Harry already manages without Dumbledore'. 
> Dumbledore is trying to wean Harry from expecting his help, but 
Harry 
> still isn't quite old enough/powerful enough.
> 
> In PS/SS Harry gets Dumbledore himself in a 'nick of time' rescue.
> 
> In CoS Harry gets less help - but he gets Fawkes and the Sorting 
hat. 
> You think Dumbledore didn't send them? They both come from his 
office.

------------------
No I don't.  He gave Harry and Ron the cryptic instructions in 
Hagrid's hut, and he confirmed in the cool-down speach that it was 
Harry who called them, not Dumbledore sending them.
==================
> 
> In PoA he gets...well. If you're trying to wean a boy off expecting 
a 
> miraculous helping hand, them someone he would much rather do 
without 
> is a pretty good choice. 
> 

> It's in GoF Harry has to manage on his own, aided only by the 'twin 
> core' nature of the wands. And does manage - but we find out later 
> that Dumbledore knows all about the Priori Incantatem Effect.

-------------
So he knew about it.  If Dumbledore was relying upon the PIE to pull 
Harry's bacon out of the fire, I am not impressed with his planning 
or wisdom.  :-)
=============
> 
>  However he still needs protection afterwards from Fake!Moody. (The 
> real suggestion that Dumbledore was completely fooled by Fake!Moody 
> and his post-Voldemort kidnap is that here there doesn't seem to 
have 
> been any advance planning - just 'grab your trusted allies, kick 
the 
> door down and fight'.)
> 
> > 
> > We have the seeds of the MoM stepping in and removing Dumbledore 
> > already at the end of GoF.  Why do we need to kill him?
> > 
> 
> Because it's more fun that way? :-)

But we don't _*NEED*_ to kill him.  :-)

> 
> Pip
> (who is beginning to suspect Dumbledore's death is an essential 
part 
> of his plan, but then she suspects everybody anyway.)

-------------
You seem to be arguing that Harry is getting slowly weaned from 
reliance upon Dumbledore.  I agree.  However, that seems to be 
happening just fine without Dumbledore cashing in his chips.  So why 
does he have to die?

Marcus (who isn't saying that Dumbledore won't die, just that he 
doesn't have to.)