No: HPFGUIDX 38624
> "You see, the Kayak is way too small already.
> "Can(n)ons!" shouts Dicentra, gesturing wildly. "What good is a
> destroyer without can(n)ons? And we've got more of 'em than all those
> other Bangy theories combined:
>
> Four:
>
> "And the tea leaves: a cross and possibly a lamb."
>
Debbie approaches the destroyer with one very small additional can(n)on and
requests permission of the good captain(s) to borrow and perhaps re-forge the
tea leaves into a larger can(n)on by noting that:
Harry sees in the tea leaves not only a crooked cross, but also the sun, both
a symbol of happiness and of resurrection (isn't that why all the old
churches always faced East, into the promise of the rising sun?). There it
is, his death and eternal life, neatly packed into one teacup.
> Eloise:
> Well, I guess we could have some kind of cataclysmic ending, where Harry
> dies
> not by a direct action of Ron's, but in a way somehow facilitated by Ron
> and
> which mercifully takes him out at the same time (we wouldn't want Ron to
> survive, knowing he was the agent of Harry's death, would we?).
[snips comparison of Evil! Ron and Judas, because I can't bear to think about
the idea]
>
> > It was Ron's fake wand that decapitated Harry's. Perhaps it will
> be his real
> > wand that kills Harry. Perhaps Voldemort will use Ron's wand (as
> his own, of
> > course, won't work against Harry's) and in the act of killing
> Harry kill
> > himself (or render himself able to be killed) by dint of whatever
> connection
> > there is between them.
>
Trying to accept this . . . well, this scenario doesn't require a *betrayal*
by Ron; Voldemort could exploit Ron by some other means to get the wand -- it
would still be his fault and it would still require forgiveness, right?
Cindy:
> h. My. Goodness! This is so perfect. Eloise, we just have to
> figure out how to have Harry and Ron die together -- at the same
> instant, and we'll be right there.
>
> Wow! Having Ron's spiffy new wand -- the wand Ron received after
> breaking his old wand on an adventure with Harry -- be the
> instrument of Harry's demise would be so darn ironic.
>
Simple solution, completely can(n)on-based -- Ron's wand backfires in
Voldemort's hands, bringing them all down together and taking Harry's head.
That would be sufficiently Bangy. Just like Lockhart stole Ron's old wand
and lost his memory when the wand backfired. The old Lockhart was dead;
Harry went to hell and was raised up by Fawkes the resurrection symbol; Ron
served time in Purgatory moving boulders, till Harry returned to take sinners
Ron and Ginny up to new life.
Lockhart matches up with Voldemort rather nicely, I think: the glamour of
Evil!
Now for the biblical can(n)on -- three persons crucified together, Christ
with two sinners, one repentant and one not. Ron, repentant, joins Harry in
the next great adventure (compare "today you will be with me in Paradise" to
the promise of happiness for Ron in the tea leaves after his suffering);
Voldemort loses his life and goes to hell.
I guess this leaves Hermione as Mary Magdalene.
> Eloise:
>
> > Ooh........ I think I'm groping towards something here. Is this
> another of
> > these clash of world view things? The desire for eternal
> (physical) life vs.
> > the desire for eternal (spiritual) life. Something in the ' He
> that loveth
> > his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world
> shall keep
> > it unto life eternal.' (John, 12; 25) vein? Is it Voldemort's
> insatiable
> > desire for physical life which will be his undoing, whilst Harry's
> embracing
> > of the 'next great adventure' which will be his salvation?
>
I should perhaps have snipped this, but I liked it too much.
Cindy:
>
> BTW, this whole discussion of Harry's beheading has made me wonder
> who, if anyone, we are *absolutely* confident will survive the
> series. My list of Survivors is actually quite short. I'm thinking
> that the minor teachers (Flitwick, Sprout) and McGonagall are safe.
> No way will JKR kill McGonagall, I think. Everyone else probably
> should watch their backs.
>
My view: Add Madam Pomfrey to the list (unless she's having a relationship
with Dumbledore on the side; after all, she makes him blush, no, scratch
Pomfrey), and subtract McGonagall. Her soft spot for Harry is a weakness
that can be exploited.
><((">----
"))><
<
Debbie, who hasn't had that much fun with the Bible in a long time
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]