Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Professor Horace Slughorn.

_________________

Pg 473

"He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularily significant deaths. You would certainly have been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death."

However it then goes on to say

"As we know, he failed. After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then occured to him to turn her into his last Horcrux."

_________________

Just a hair off topic, but just now they did J.K. Rowling on A&E Biography, and at the end, she had this folder out, and she said that it contained the final chapter of book 7. She said she was a little nervous about showing it, and then laughed at herself, because "it's not like the camera can see through the folder".
But me? It was really weird seeing that, right there, and knowing what was inside. I was like "Oh my GOD! I WANT IT! GIMME!"

EDIT: Also, a couple of things she said made me think maybe Harry will die at the end of book 7.
It was originally filmed in 2002, but at one point, she was talking about deaths in the books, and she said "More people are going to die, and, um, there's at least one death that is going to be horrible to write, to re-write, actually, because it’s already written. But, um, it has to be."
She could've been speaking of either Sirius or Dumbledore, but possibly Harry. After all, we know she's already written the end of book 7.
Another thing she said, when she was showing the folder with the final chapter struck me too. I can't find the exact quote online (like I did with the one above), so you'll have to settle for my memory. She said that it was an epilogue that ties everything up. That it shows what everyone else goes on to do, the ones that survive anyway, because there are more deaths coming.
Not sure how exactly she worded it, but something about it struck me, that she wasn't including Harry's future in that. Perhaps because he doesn't have one.

_________________

Love is blindness. -- Set by my Secret Santa =D

No TDG:

It does not clearly state that he incased any part of his soul in harry.

_________________
[URL=http://randomness.talonz.com/smf]
Set by WIS/Button by TS.
Join a werewolf game! Click here![/URL]

Hmm, sorry if I've rehashed something... but you guys know how avadakedavra doesn't work unless you mean it right? Maybe... Snape didn't really kill Dumbledore... and it was all an act... and in the process... etc. etc. etc.

_________________

I think Dumbledore really is dead. Snape HAD to kill him.

However, Dumby's Patronus is a Phoenix after all. He might come back.

*implores JKR on bended knee*

Snape looked at Dumbledore with burning hatred before killing him. Not meaning it, eh?

Despite what everyone likes to think, I believe Dumbledore really is dead and Snape really is evil - or at least evil at the moment he killed Dumbledore. He may have a change of heart later, turn against Voldemort, etc, but the fact remains that he killed Dumbledore.

(Oh btw, and I guessed Snape was the HBP halfway through the book. Who else would be so good at potions?)

_________________
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/qanda/qandalitsiggy.gif" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

My dad brought up a point... Dumbledore trusted Snape with everything he had... what if Dumbledore made Snape a horcrux? (<- NOT MY THEORY, but I think it's cute my dad is trying to get in on the theories)

_________________

Evisceration is a sign of respect.

Snape had a look of hatred and revulsion on his face before killing Dumbledore. It doesn't say Snape was experienceing hatred towards Dumbledore, although that was clearly Harry's inference. Rowling describes Harry's emotions before giving Dumbledore the potion in almost exactly the same terms. Harry was clearly experiencing revulsion towards the act he was being asked to perform (and maybe towards himself) and this could have been true of Snape as well.

I don't know how Avada Kedavra works, actually. I'm still waiting for someone making that argument to quote the part of the series that says somthing unambiguous about the Killing Curse only working when you hate the victim or suchlike. The closest I've seen so far is Bella's (somewhat ambiguous) statement about the Cruciatus Curse, which isn't the same curse and may or may not follow the same rules. Which doesn't mean it may not be there, but I don't recall one.

At any rate, "meaning it" is rather unspecific and doesn't necssarily entail "wanting it". I'd be willing to believe you can't AK someone just goofing around. But if Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him, then why wouldn't Snape "mean it"?

_________________

Since there are people with much more knowledge of Harry Potter than me. I was wondering if anyone knows the particular signifigance (if any) of July 16th in the Wizarding World? Any particular births, deaths or events she has noted?

_________________

generally unimpressed. Koku.

Snape definitly killed Dumbledore. I'm not sure if he really "wanted" to, but he did. But who knows. I think most people have grately underestimated the complexity of the character known as Snape. I know I did. I did think he was complex before, but never to this extent. Dumbledore's death definitly serves some sort of great purpose. I have to admit, although I cried my eyes out, it does move the story to a whole new level. No one else's death, short of Harry's, would have done it.

And I highly doubt Dumbledore would make a horcrux.


By the way, the zombies should've gotten more "page" time! Shaun of the Dead with wizards would have rocked.

And man these books are getting dark! By the time they get to the 7th movie, it might have to be R rated. Sheesh.

_________________
Don't be afraid to see the truth, even if no one wants you to. Be yourself and not a fool. Don't ever be afraid to speak your mind and listen to criticism. Dissent is keeps our country progressive and willingness to challenge yourself is what keeps yourself ever evolving.

R rated... I wish. *nudge nudge wink wink*

If Dumbledore did make a Horcurx (perhaps some kind of good horcrux? is there such a thing?) it would definitely be Fawkes. In a recent interview, JK was asked if someone had owned Fawkes before Dumbledore and if he (Fawkes) would play a vital role in the last book. She responded saying...



And, c'mon, a phoenix is the perfect horcrux. Putting your soul in something that keeps getting reborn... brilliant. Also, Dumbledore is heavily associated with the birds. His patronus is one, and patronus' usually reflect something important about yourself.

Even if that isn't the case, I can't wait to see Fawkes again and find out what his role is.

In fact, I can't wait to find out about everything she's hinted at. The importance of Harry having his mother's eyes. What we don't know about Petunia. The remaining Horcrux. R.A.B. Sirius and Dumbledore (even if they don't come back, there is surely going to be more about them since death is so mysterious). Suspense kills me.

_________________

I know it does not clearly state he incased any part of his soul in Harry. That is why it's called a theory. I said it clearly stated that 'Voldemort was going to kill Harry, then get something from Gryffindor to encase his soul in, with Harry's death'. NOT that he incased any part of his soul in Harry.

_________________

|| Set // WIS < 33 ||

No that was a theory Dumbledore had. And it was EITHER an object Gryffindor owned OR Ravenclaw.

_________________
[URL=http://randomness.talonz.com/smf]
Set by WIS/Button by TS.
Join a werewolf game! Click here![/URL]