Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Death sentence for Harry Potter?

Its been all over the news: Harry Potter is going to die!! Well, thats the spin at least that the media is putting on an interview Jo did on Richard and Judy Monday. (Richard and Judy is a talk show I believe on BBC, although I could be wrong.) Transcript or video if you havent seen it yet. What she actually said, she can see why some authors prefer to kill off their main characters because then no one besides her will have control over that character and they cant write sequels. A valid point I might add. She did say that shes given one character a reprieve but two others will be killed. She said they are major characters. In todays (June 28) issue of USA Today, Melissa (webmaster at www.the-leaky-cauldron.org) and Emerson (webmaster at www.mugglenet.com) were asked the likelihood of six major characters being killed. What I find interesting in this article is no one mentions Hagrid.

In the alchemy theory (thanks to John Granger Looking for God in Harry Potter), original material (such as lead or another base metal) is taken through three stages (the black, the white and the red), which changes said material to gold through spiritual development and perfection. Hes compared these three stages to the final three books of the series. According to Granger, OotP represents the black stage finishing in the necessary devastation of the black matter. This is symbolized by the death of Sirius Black. HBP logically is the white, or purifying, stage. In the white stage, the original material having been broken down in the black stage is concentrated and purified. Think spiritually for a second: the ego takes a step back and gets a broader view on the situation. Also, Albus is Latin for white. Harry does a lot of growing up in HBP and has accepted what he needs to do. He even breaks up with Ginny because he doesnt want to endanger her. Following this theory, one of the most logical characters with his head on the proverbial chopping block for Book 7 would be Hagrid (Rubeus means red).

Another theory Im a little fond of, mainly because of the literary implications, is that Ron will die. *Gasp!* There are
a few arguments for why Ron could die in Book 7. My favorite would be the giant chess game from PS/SS. As we all remember, Ron sacrificed himself so Harry could move forward to catch Snape/Quirrell. Could this possibly be foreshadowing the end of the series? Ron sacrifices himself so Harry can move forward to catch Snape (the real one this time?)? Part of me would like to think not just because I hate the idea of the Trio not finishing together. But its definitely a strong possibility.

Voldemort I think will die. Some argue that Voldy will be die but Tom Riddle will live. Im not a fan of this theory mainly because hes split his soul so many times and been so corrupted by evil and his ambition for power, I dont think there is enough of Tom Riddle that exists within him to sustain him in life.

Snape, I think has a fifty-fifty chance. He could be killed for being a traitor (whether hes good or evil, hes been a traitor. See previous blog for discussion on Snape). He also could remain alive and be tortured by his actions for the rest of his life.

Harry like I said earlier, I think she has a valid point where she might kill him off at the end. Although I would really hate to see that.

So as of now, my guesses would be Ron and Hagrid. (I dont think Voldemort counts as part of the two she mentioned.) Although no matter who it is, Ill be reading Book 7 with a box of tissues.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Severus Snape

There are so many things I want to discuss about Harry Potter. With limited time and funds, I thought Id try to post a few blogs on some of the theories Ive heard.

*I suggest that youve read all six released books or you might have some plot lines spoiled for you. Youve been warned.*

Severus Snape. Hes the character we all love to hate. Hes extremely complex and thats what makes him so interesting. Is he evil? Is he good? Did he have a plan with Dumbledore that required Snape to Avada Kedavra him and Dumbledore didnt let Harry in on the secret? Im not going to attempt to say that Snape is either evil or good (because personally Im still on the fence). What I do think is that Snape is in it for himself, and weve only been told part of the story. We get the facts through the Harry-filter (the story is told from Harrys point of view so his assumptions are our assumptions and his opinions are ours). Jo is brilliant at this particular tactic. She waves a piece of information in front of us as fact through Harry and we are thrown off what is actually the truth. For example, why exactly did Dumbledore trust Snape so explicitly? We all know the answer Dumbledore told Harry: Snape felt sorry that his actions caused the deaths of Lily and James. But think about this: Snape and James hated each other; it was a mutual hatred. So, why would Snape regret his actions? Some will say that maybe he wasnt all bad and felt sorry especially considering that James saved his life. However, I still believe that despite these arguments it is not a strong enough reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape so much. Which brings us to the obvious question: why did Dumbledore trust Snape? I honestly, have no idea. Hopefully, this is one of many questions that will be answered in the seventh, and final *sob*, book.