Harry will die

[Wanda Sherratt]

No: HPFGUIDX 104295

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kljohnson7868" 
<kathleenjohnson at j...> wrote:

> IMHO, I think good will defeat evil. Having said that, I doubt Harry 
> will remain alive by the end of the series. I think he will 
> sacrifice himself to ensure Voldemort's death. Of course, it would 
> be ironic, considering that Harry is known as "The boy who lived". 
> 
I agree, I think Harry is going to die in the end.  Maybe Rowling will 
be able to make this a death that the readers will approve of or agree 
with, either because of a promise of happiness after death or because 
Harry himself will want to embrace death.  But I think he's definitely 
going to die.  

Furthermore, I think his death is really the central point of 
Dumbledore's "plan" which he discussed with Harry at the end of OotP. 
 That discussion was a bit unsatisfactory to me, mainly because 
Dumbledore said so explicitly that he was going to tell Harry 
"everything", yet in the end, I wasn't quite sure what he had been 
talking about.  It's not just the carefully-worded and enigmatic 
prophecy - Dumbledore's own words seemed a bit less candid than I 
had expected after that buildup.  However, after looking at it a few 
times, I've noticed a few things.  At the very start of his narrative, 
he says that his primary objective after GH was to keep Harry alive, 
and for a very specific purpose: because he knew that Voldemort was 
not yet "vanquished", and if Harry didn't survive, nobody else would 
be able to do it when the time came.  His personal feelings for Harry 
came later, to complicate matters.  "I cared more for your happiness 
than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, 
more *for your life* than the lives that might be lost if the plan 
failed." (emphasis added)  So, he's still talking about Harry's life 
here, along with the other things - happiness, peace of mind, etc.  It 
becomes a bit clearer in the next paragraph: "What did I care if 
numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered 
in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive and well, 
and happy?"  I think that the "alive" outweighs everything else.  Is 
is reasonable that Dumbledore, of all people, would hesitate between 
saving lives and causing one person unhappiness?  That he would think 
that allowing others to be killed could be balanced by Harry having a 
happy, peaceful life?  I don't think the average person would think 
that was a fair trade; but if it were Harry's LIFE against the lives 
of others he didn't know, THAT would be believable.  Anyone might find 
that a trade they would shrink from - to trade the life of one person 
you love against numbers of people you'll never meet, even if it's the 
right thing to do.  

So I think Harry misunderstands Dumbledore at the end - he thinks that 
this is going to come down to a contest between him and Voldemort.  It 
is, but it's a suicide mission.  Dumbledore doesn't come out and say 
it like that, so I think that Harry might be thinking that his job is 
to kill or be killed, and that's bad enough for any kid.  But he 
doesn't realize that in order for the plan to succeed, he CAN'T 
survive.  He is doomed.  Rowling will eventually explain how his death 
will also bring about Voldemort's "vanquishing", but that the two go 
together I have no doubt.  In this case, it makes sense that 
Dumbledore COULD have told Harry at the end of PS, but didn't want to. 
 Because the minute he knows what's in store for him, he will be 
divided from his friends, and all chance of a "normal" life will be 
over.  He'll be living under a death sentence - how could he bear to 
be with his friends, knowing that they will go on to live lives, make 
plans, raise families, have careers, and none of that can ever be his? 
 Dumbledore might well have reasoned that there was no harm in buying 
him an extra year of happiness; it's a bit of a fool's paradise, but 
still, the sacrifice hasn't beend demanded yet, so why not wait a 
year?

Wanda