Who killed Dumbledore?

[Anthony]

No: HPFGUIDX 162912

> Bart:
> It's been discussed before, but I'll bring it up again. We have
> seen all sorts of wounds healed in the WW. Even the poison that Art
> Weasley was hit with was curable. With Dumbledore's resources, it
> must be therefore at the very least considered that the reason why
> his hand could not be helaed was that it was already dead, and that
> the death was somehow blocked, might we even say "stoppered", at the end of the wound.

> Ceridwen:
<snip>
> I just browsed the questions from the Radio City Music Hall reading
> again: http://boards.harrypotter.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa?
> threadID=35368&start=30&tstart=0 and can't see where Rowling gives
> anything at all away about *how* Dumbledore died.  Maybe it's as
> straightforward as it seems, or maybe there's something hidden.  I
> just wonder why she didn't come out and say, "Sure, he's dead,
> Snape killed him.  It's right there on page... Or, wait, perhaps
> you'd rather read it on a sign over the highway?" (audience
> chuckles).


Hello All,

I'm new to the group and still getting a feel for what's permissable
and what's not, so I hope my chiming in won't offend anyone.  I'm not
sure what the general consensus here is, but I have to say I'm still
not convinced (depsite compelling arguments) that Dumbledore is dead.

Gandalf came back, Merlin came back (in some versions). It seems to
me that Rowling has remained faithful to the accepted norm when it
comes to the whole development of the young hero concept, and the
temporary removal of the Mentor is a big part of that tradition.  And,
as Ceridwen points out, it's not like JK is being straightforward when
asked if Dumbledore is dead or not.

I am intrigued by the idea that Dumbledore's hand was dead throughout
the book and Snape "stoppered" it.

Thanks for letting me chime in, all.

Anthony