|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on May 23, 2005 18:25:33 GMT -5
I doubt she'll kill off such a mysterious and intriguing character as snape so soon, not in the next book at least, she said she's going to explain him more which means keeping him alive for a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grace on May 25, 2005 14:56:42 GMT -5
Hermione's a main character too! It would be so sad though if Neville died, because he's practically the only sane and alive person in his family.  |
|
|
|
Post by CrazyGirlyCaptain on May 25, 2005 15:38:58 GMT -5
One of the main character is sooo going to die!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on May 25, 2005 17:33:05 GMT -5
Killing Neville would just be cruel, he's hopeless in himself and in his family as it is....
|
|
Nora
Reptile Researcher
Go Kev
Posts: 38
|
Post by Nora on Jun 10, 2005 22:24:41 GMT -5
I think that Harry will die because of the prophecy. "Neither can live while the other survives" I think it's like a Dragon Heart thing. What happens to one will happen to the other. Once Harry kills Voldemort, he too will die or vice versa. Harry will have to make the ultimate sacrifice. In killing Voldemort, he is killing himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Jun 11, 2005 17:42:02 GMT -5
That part has never made sense to me. "Neither can live while the other survives.." Then explain how Harry is living while Voldemort is living(surviving) or vice versa...
|
|
|
|
Post by TvSkater on Jun 21, 2005 21:39:40 GMT -5
Yeah, it is strange...why didn't the prophecy just say, "Neither can live while the other one does." How very inetresting. I can't wait, soon we shall see who leaves the HP series. I'm so excoted!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Jun 23, 2005 20:38:41 GMT -5
'neither can live while the other does' wouldn't make sense either as both are currently living, each living while the other does, thus defying the prophecy and confusing me who possesses little common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jun 24, 2005 2:17:58 GMT -5
"Neither can live while the other survives" is probably the carefully-worded bit. If "while" was replaced with "if" then Dumbledore's explanation would make slightly more sense. Or maybe it's just an archaic way of putting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Jun 28, 2005 19:53:18 GMT -5
I guess. I know it only means that one has got to kill the other but it still doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by lemonyfangirl on Jun 29, 2005 16:57:59 GMT -5
Dumbledore or Hagrid those people are very important to HArry so I think it will be one of them. I mainly think it is dumbledore though. He will die saving HArry and HArry will never forgive himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Jun 29, 2005 19:33:21 GMT -5
Why do you keep spelling it HArry?
Dumbledore dying to save harry does seem plausible but I just can't see all powerful Dumbledore dying...
|
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Jul 3, 2005 5:28:27 GMT -5
Killing Neville would be cool.
Because then, Voldemort is all like "Aha, I am undefeatable!"
Then, when Harry throws him off a cliff, he realises that he can still die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Jul 3, 2005 19:51:53 GMT -5
That would be interesting, a fake and a holdout. That just brought to mind the thought that polyjuice potion could be used.... Voldemort kills Harry, BUT NO HARRY SHOWS UP AND VOLDIE'S DEAD. sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by MsMourning on Jul 9, 2005 19:23:17 GMT -5
I'm gonna go with Vernon mainly because of the theory about how the blood of Harry's mother is protecting him. Lily and Petunia are related so they have the same blood, Dudley is Petunia's biological son so her blood runs through him, same with Harry and his mother, Vernon on the other hand isn't blood related to any of the potters or Petunia so that would leave him vulnerable.
|
|
