The exact wording of the prophecy is that "neither can live while the other survives," which I've always interpreted as an either/or situation. I'm still sticking with the idea that Harry will survive and LV won't, though I assume, given JKR's proven ruthlessness, that Harry will sustain some sort of permanent, nasty injury by the end. The ending I'm hoping for involves Harry, Ginny, and lots of little Potters running around, giving Harry the chance to create the family he'd never had...

The person I'm the most worried about is Hagrid, quite honestly. Unless Hagrid's semi-successful taming of Grawp saves him, somehow, because I'm assuming Grawp is going to play a major role... JKR hinted in an interview that Grawp was the most dangerous monster Hagrid had ever tried to tame, and that it was important to note that he was meeting with some measure of success...

Funny you should mention the resurrection thing, as that's exactly what I was thinking with Dumbledore's death. Somehow I don't believe he's gone for good.

I know it was mentioned on a site, I just have to dig it up. All my HP links are on my home computer, so I might not have the time until the weekend, but I will try to have it for next week.
While the resurection theme could apply to DD, I think it's more likely to apply to Harry as he seems to be the one it will come down to to save the wizarding community.

I have to say that I disagree wholeheartedly on the idea that HP will be resurrected. Yes, I'm sure that JKR does write using her religious beliefs, but there's nothing in the canon of all the HP books to make a resurrection plot a viable theory, at least in my opinion. She seems to have gone almost out of her way to show that a wizard, once dead, stays that way. LV didn't die when the avada curse hit him, only because he'd performed some fairly complicated magic in the form of creating horcruxes, etc., as well we all know. She's never mentioned the concept of a wizard brought back to life in a true, real fashion, as the term "resurrection" would suggest... and then there's the conversation Harry has with Nearly Headless Nick about ghosts after Sirius has died, where Nick explains that wizards only come back as ghosts if they choose not to "go on" (or whatever term he uses), but mentions nothing at all about the possibility of a resurrection anywhere... I'm sure there's probably more, but it just seems like within the "reality" of the world JKR has created, resurrection isn't an option unless one hadn't actually died, at which point it wouldn't be resurrection at all. And as there's nothing about Harry that makes him any different than any other wizard beyond having a mother who, when offered the choice to live, chose rather to die to protect her son (the choice being the really important thing), there doesn't seem to be anything that would make him any different from any other wizard when it comes to the idea of resurrection...

I love Harry and want him to live through book 7 as much as anyone else, but I think if LV kills him, he'll remain dead.

I second that, MHJr. If Harry dies, I think he will remain dead. How else will Rowling justify ending the series forever? DD is such a (dare I say it?) Gandalf type figure that I believe we will see him again in some fashion - even if only by way of his portrait. Harry's character has evolved into something of a tragic hero, and we all know that tragic heroes do not get happy endings. Otherwise - we'd have to call them something else, right?

Nope, Becca, I don't think Harry will die. Of course, I know just as much for sure as anyone else but I don't think that she'll do this in a childrens' book. Shakespeare is for tragic heros. Harry Potter will show that life can be good and go on after suffering loss and facing down adversity.

I heard somewhere that JKR said she fears for her life if she kills Harry. I don't know if that is true or not, but a good point - HP has a lot of followers. I also saw her on Biography and she has the final chapter of book 7 completed and locked away. She has had this entire story completed since she dreamed it up and I can't wait.
My theory, well general thought really, is that it all comes down to love. DD has said that love saved Harry and LV has destroyed all that Harry loves so in the end, the battle has to be about something so basic. I think that many of Harry's friends will be involved in helping him bring LV down and it will be their love for one another that will prevail.
While the British love their tragedies (ever watch a Brit comedy? They don't always end up happy in 30 minutes) I think that HP will end in a way to make us all happy. Harry will win in the end but not without sacrifice and he can continue on with his life. We don't need to read about that.
One more thing I don't know if it has been mentioned here, but in book 5 when Harry and friends are going through Sirius' things, one of the items was a locket that none of them could open. That has to have some sigfinigance.

The story has obviously gotten darker through the series, and Harry is growing up. My friend and I were discussing how long the wait is between the books coming out and an odd thought occurred to us - does anyone else think that JKR is giving the kids she hooked with SS time to grow up enough to understand the story? The writing has become considerably more adult as the story progressed, and we were wondering if this is as much a reflection of Harry's maturing as it is the intended audience.

The books have been coming out pretty much like clockwork considering JKR got remarried and had 2 more babies after Harry skyrocketed her to fame. Writing a book is never easy and the scrutiny these are under makes it even tougher to write them without making a mistake. I just don't think she's holding back so she can kill Harry off.

no i don't think so either... i think she has these books very very well planned out, which is why she can have so many great hints and clues in all the books for the books that follows. she knows if harry lives or not,a nd as much as i love these books they are just that and its a sad world if she fears for herself because of a story

I haven't posted in a while, but to throw my two cents in, I would indeed be very sad if Harry died at the end of the series, but here's a weird idea that just occurred to me: what if LV ended up giving up the fight? I know it sounds highly doubtful, but we could end up with a scene like in Toy Story 2 (where the other Buzz is playing catch with his 'father' the evil emperor Zurg). Well, I doubt THAT happening exactly, but still - I wonder if somehow, things will come to a sort of impasse between Harry and LV. It's a crazy scheme, I admit, but while we're throwing stuff out there, what do you all think? Could LV ever be persuaded to give up the fight, to stop believing in the prophecy? And if so, would Harry then refrain from killing him (after all LV's done to him and everyone)?

Is there any way to atone for being a prejudiced, maniacal mass-murderer? Rowling has indirectly taken to task many modern practices (terrorism, racism, etc), and it wouldn't surprise me if she made some sort of statement about the idea of a death penalty as well.

i really don't think there is anything much to the way snape killed dumbledore. maybe it is jus tat he really did hate dumbledore. maybe he is on Voldy's side after all.only the last book can tell.

i agree tat something at Godric's hollow cud be a horcrux. also i feel there may be a horcrux at hogwarts.in all the books hogwarts plays a major role. Maybe it will be the place where it all comes to an end. B'coz that is the only place that both HP and LV feel the happiest and they regard it as kind of a home.

I agree that snape may have been in love wit Lily. It seems the only plausible reason that dumbledore might have trusted him for. Or maybe there is a more solid reason. It jus doesn't seem enough tat he regrets that James and LILY had been led to their deaths becos of the info tat he passed on.

If R.A.B. is in fact regulus then how did he get the locket into grimmauld place?I thought he managed only foe a few short hrs after havin deserted LV that the death eaters caught up wit him.
___________________________________Ashritha

Kansayaku, THAT opens up a whole world of possibilities. Could DD himself have 'disappear(ed) as in appear dead"?

Maybe the award for Special Services to the School given to Tom Riddle is the 6th Horcrux.

Or did they? Dumbledore mentioned to Draco that he could make him and Narcissa disappear, and later Lucius as well. Is it possible that he also could have made Regulus disappear. Disappear as in appear dead.

---

That's BRILLIANT. That's really brilliant. The ONLY hangup I have with this is that Harry does have possession of 12 Grimmauld Place, and supposedly he was only able to inherit it because there were no more members in Sirius' immediate family - had Regulus been alive, he in theory would have inherited the family place. HOWEVER, I'm not entirely sure that it matters, because if they've hidden Regulus to make everyone assume he's dead, that could have gotten them around the way the estate was entailed...

My next thought, and this one has pretty much no backing anywhere in the book other than that it's completely something I could see JKR doing, is that Regulus took Polyjuice potion and that, at the end of HBP, the person who we assume to be Dumbledore is actually Regulus in disguise, sacrificing himself for the greater good of the order or something like that, except that that's not particularly likely, given he would have then known about the locket. But does anyone think there's a possibility that a very much alive Regulus will appear at some point in book 7?

Love that polyjuice!
Deppfan: that could be an interesting idea!

Plus, why would a portrait of Dumbledore appear in the Headmaster's office if he wasn't really dead. I think he's gone, sadly...

Hen - I agree to a point. I think DD really did die, hence the portrait. However, he is closely tied to the Phoenix. At his funeral, his body bursts into flames without reason, then Harry thinks he sees a Phoenix in the smoke for a moment. So, while DD did die, I think he will somehow be reborn like a phoenix.

As for Regulus, if DD did make him disappear, wouldn't he have told DD about the locket? While I'm not convinced he is dead, I find it hard to buy that DD was involved in the disappearance.

As for 12 Grimuald passing to Harry, if Regulus had been disowned, wouldn't that prevent him from inheriting it? Just a thought.

Regulus wasn't disowned - Sirius makes it pretty clear that Regulus was the favorite child and so on when they're discussing the Black family tree in OotP, and, more to the point, Regulus's name is still ON the family tree, whereas Sirius had been blasted off by his (not so) loving mother....

bucket, I like that idea. And Zb, that's the same thought I had about DD. Think I'm going to do some sleuthing on Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron and see what they've had to say especially about Regulus.

I'm about halfway through my 2nd read of HBP, and I have questions. Why does Draco suddenly not trust Snape? Through the whole series, he's been Draco's favorite teacher but now all of a sudden they seem to be at odds. Snape repeatedly summons him to the office, but he refuses to go. Snape offers to assist him with his plan, but he refuses to reveal it. He even admits that his Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching him Occlumency to keep Snape out of his head. We are told in the 2nd chapter that Bellatrix does not trust Snape, but Narcissa appears to trust him completely. Why would Draco take his Aunt's word over that of his own mother?