[HPforGrownups] If Dumbledore dies......

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

No: HPFGUIDX 130441

Flyingmonkeypurple:
> People keep saying that Dumbledore is going to die.
> I feel if Dumbledore dies then LV has no one to fear.

I think you've sort of missed the whole point.  *Harry* is the only one 
who can permanently defeat LV (and I do think LV knows or suspects 
that, and is at least a *little* perturbed), and in order for him to 
meaningfully fulfill this role, the "safety" needs to be turned off.  
That is, Dumbledore has to be out of the picture -- dead, captured, in 
a coma, whathaveyou.

> Dumbledore
> is the only reason it has taken LV a long time to regain his powers.

Er . . . canon?  If we take the books at face-value (and, indeed, 
Dumbledore's *words* at face-value), Harry is the reason why it has 
taken LV a long time to regain his powers.  Now, you may argue that 
Dumbledore has been out there, fighting the good fight, striking down 
Vapor!Voldy at every turn, but such speculation would be purely . . . 
well, speculative.  Indeed, the books (and, again, Dumbledore) suggest 
that Voldy has been in *hiding* for a decade when Harry comes to 
Hogwarts.  The good guys don't really know what he is doing or where he 
is -- they suspect he will be back, of course, but being on guard 
hardly counts as thwarting anything.

At the end PS/SS Dumbledore tells Harry that while his efforts have not 
done away with Voldemort for good, they *have* succeeded setting him 
back.  I agree with him -- throughout the books, any temporary "defeat" 
of Voldy has been mainly Harry's doing.  (Interestingly, in the passage 
I am refering to, Dumbledore goes on to mislead Harry quite thoroughly 
WRT to what we know about the Prophecy -- he says that if good people 
keep setting Voldy back, he may never regain power.  However, we now 
know that Dumbledore *knows* Harry's going to have to meet Voldy and 
either kill or be killed.  Hrm.)

>  If Dumbledore dies then Lv can do what ever he wants to do. Harry
> has no change without Dumbledore alive.

I'd argue that it'd be a pretty dull, pointless sort of ending to have 
Harry defeat Voldemort -- but only with Dumbledore watching over his 
shoulder.  Kind of goes against the whole plot of the book, doesn't it?

> If Dumbledore gone who is
> going to run the order to stop LV. They might as well all kiss their
> safety goodbye. IMO If LV does murder Dumbledore killing every other
> person is going to be like taking candy from a baby. LV would not
> let anything stop him once he defeated Dumbledore.

Agreed.  Dumbledore's death/incapacitation will definitely raise the 
ante.  Yet, Dumbledore *will* be defeated -- in some form -- before the 
climax of the series.  It *has* to be this way -- otherwise how can 
Harry really be the hero?  Remember, this isn't Dumbledore's story.  
It's not even the story of his generation or Harry's parent's 
generation.  Eventually, the "all-powerful" adults will have to be 
removed so that the younger generation of heroes can save their world 
for themselves.

Laura
http://www.livejournal.com/users/laurahuntley