Dumbledore's hand / horcruxes

[npod4291]

No: HPFGUIDX 134790

Isis wrote:

JKR talked about how Sirius' death was just senseless, and shows that
> sometimes there is no reason for death.  I find it difficult for her
> to use the same type of example with yet another character readers
> love.  I just can't get over the fact that Dumbledore's death has to
> be *essential* to the resolution of the books (i.e., if he did not
> die, Harry could not defeat Voldemort)-- I just don't know what that
> reason is yet :-).  The one thing I keep thinking (farfetched as it
> is) is, perhaps the liquid itself was a horcrux, and therefore,
> Dumbledore had to die to destroy that Horcrux (which would mean there
> are only 3 out there for Harry to get...)


I think that you are right in that DD died so that Harry could Defeat 
LV, but I don't think that it had anything to do with the Horcruxes, 
or at least I don't think that it HAD to (I believe it might, but not 
necessarily, I could go either way on that.)  I think that DD died for 
Harry's own self-confidence.  I know I've said this another post, but 
I'm almost positive that this has to be a reason.  DD had to die or 
Harry would never stand completely on his own two feet.  He would 
alwats lean on DD for support and to save him when things go downhill.
-Nate