Dumbledore does not HAVE to die.

[c_voth312]

No: HPFGUIDX 39419

> 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.)

Because, as I said before, it forces the stakes to a whole new 
level.  It's all the difference between, say, preparing for an 
national emergency and having a couple commercial jets crash into the 
most prominent piece of the cityscape.  If Dumbledore is gone--and I 
mean really gone, not just unemployed or distracted--it signifys a 
severe crisis in the good guys' camp, and what has been a matter of 
growing up gradually becomes "sink-or-swim", not just for Harry but 
for a lot of other people as well.  Dramatically speaking, having 
Dumbledore die carries more weight.
Of course, given the tendency for the deceased to crop up here and 
there in the series, one could argue that even Dumbledore's death 
won't remove him from the equation entirely.  I sometimes think this 
is going to be the ultimate purpose of the Penseive--that 
Dumbledore's "wisdom" will still be with Harry et al. even when the 
man himself no longer is.

~Christi