Only TWO Die? No, wait...

[annemehr]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" 
<erisedstraeh2002 at ...> wrote:
 
> My local paper seems to have done a Rita Skeeter and taken 
her "two 
> die that she didn't intend to die" to mean there will be only two 
> deaths in the last book.  But her statement doesn't necessarily 
mean 
> there will only be two deaths in the last book (since she's said 
> before that there will be more deaths before the series is over, 
I'm 
> thinking this means there are two new ones added to the ones she 
> already had planned).  And the answer was in the context of a 
> question regarding the last chapter, so characters could die 
before 
> then (ala Sirius and Dumbledore).
>  
> Frankly, I'd surprised if it's only two, as I expected many 
more.   
> 
> ~Phyllis
>

I think you have the right idea.

I just reread Firenze's first Divination lesson in OoP this morning, 
where he told the class, "In the past decade, the indications have 
been that Wizard-kind is living through nothing more than a brief 
calm between two wars."

I don't think we can call what we've had so far a "war."  Not even a 
little one.  Seems like we ought to be in for a lot of mayhem in the 
next twelve months while Harry is busy collecting Horcruxes.

Or, how would it be if Harry defeats Voldemort only to find that, 
instead of achieving a nice lull in the violence until some future 
evil overlord comes along, he's actually somehow triggered the 
*real* war.  'Cause maybe Voldemort isn't the real problem, and once 
he's really gone for good, a delicate balance shifts and all hell 
breaks loose.  That'd be a twist.

Nah, I suppose not...

It'd be a boon for the shredder manufacturers, though.

Anne