<	Latest Articles
	Comments Index
	Save Last On

Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
•	Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
•	Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
•	Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Pages:  <<  <  26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 36)

broom with a view, Dumbledore is not Fawkes, because like you said they are often in the same room. However, i do think that Dumbledore's animagus may be a phoenix. The fire, the name the order of the phoenix (that's dumbledore's group), the fact that he was a transfiguration teacher and we have never been told what he can turn into. Fire is a major theme around Dumbledore and his magic.

By Dumbldore being a phoenix that would imply that he can and then be reborn. His was very similar to Fawkes' own and rebirth. "Bright white flames had erupted around Dumbledore's body and the table upon which it lay. Higher and higer they rose, obscuring the body. white smoke spiraled into the air and made strange shapes: Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix fly joyfully into the blue, but next second the fire had vanished." (p645 HBP, US)

These lines reaaly make me believe that what Harry saw was REAL. JKR can then go to interviews and state the Dumbledore is . She's not lying, but we know better. He d but is coming back to life. And by the way, that is not "pulling a gandolf", so again JKR is being honest to a point. she just isn't telling us the next most logical step---he was reborn! Why would she tell us that yet? We need to read book 7 and keep up the suspense.

Posted by Heather from NJ on May 14, 2007 6:05 PM

When Jo said that Dumbledore was and that she was not putting a "Gandalf", I think she included in her speech any way of getting Dumbledore to appear again, living, after his , whatever the reason would be (he isn't really - "Dumbledore isn't " ; he is and be born again - "like a phoenix"; he should be but that is impossible for some reason - "like Aslan"; he is in his previous status and appear under another status - "like Gandalf").

I don't think Jo would play with the words to fool us. It would be different if, asked about the similarities between HP and The Lord of the Rings, she said Dumbledore's wasn't exactly the same as Gandalf's . Then, we could imagine any other case. But, here, she was very positive and I think she meant: "Dumbledore is for ever; don't expect him to survive or revive in any way."

From this on, we have imagined many ways of seeing again Dumbledore:
1) The portraits: we know Dumbledore already has a portrait; portraits can speak, act of their own (and even get drunk), have some reminiscence from the past (cf Phineas Nigellus), can tell about what they saw in the recent past (the scene with Arthur and the snake). Can they remember precise scenes from the time they were living, like the ghosts? Probably, but we can't be totally sure of that.
2) Being a ghost: that seems very unlikely, people who become ghosts were afraid of , and Dumbledore certainly was not.
3) Storaged memories: we know that Dumbledore had at least one of his own memories storaged in a bottle. Would there be other ones?
4) Other people: Harry could get interesting informations about Dumbledore, especially from Aberforth, Filch and Snape.
5) Time traveling: as I suggested before, we should consider that Dumbledore could have spent some time in the future (year 7) before at the end of year 6. This theory leads to a complex plot but is really plausible. It could explain the difficulties Jo expressed about putting Dumbledore in book 7.

Posted by herve from strasbourg on May 15, 2007 01:51 AM

The first thing that entered my mind was that snape had used a nonverbal spell and pronounced "Avada Kedavra" wrong so that this curse wouldn't have an effect on Dumbledore, but everybody would think he did it what would do good to his role as Eater. I'm sure that Dubledore come back in the next book, otherwise it would just be too easy.

Posted by jasmien from Gent, Belgium on May 15, 2007 07:59 AM

Herve, that makes alot of sense! When Dumbledore was "missing" or on assignment from Hogwarts (many times) in book 6, he could have been travelling to the future (Book7) to help Harry. So in effect, JKR is not lying... Dumbledore DID (in book 6), but is in book 7 and he did NOT travel from the future. He travelled from the past. This makes more sense than anything else I have heard.

Posted by Sharon from Michigan on May 15, 2007 09:42 AM

Snape made the Unbreakable Vow that he would Dumbledore. We know that Snape was a Slytherin and we know that Slytherins would rather save their own neck than somebody elses, and Snape is still alive, so he had to have actually ed him. But yes I agree that he told Dumbledore that he was going to have to him, why else would he have finally got the D.A.D.A. job other than Dumbledoore knew it was going to be both of their last year there and he wanted to let him have it for at least one year?

Posted by anonymous on May 15, 2007 3:13 PM

Herve, as you know i do love the Dumbledore as a human-phoenix theory. However, my back up thoery is one that i believe you proposed way back in one of your ealier posts. you described a theory where the present Dumbledore takes a sleeping draught in book 1. the future dumbledore is the one that we know now--through out the last 6 books. he then s, but in book 7 the present dumbledore wakes from his sleep and guide harry. please feel free to correct me Herve but i belive that this theory was yours.

To support this, Snape often gives us clues. Early in SS, during Snapes first lesson, he mentions the Draught of the living . Similarly in PoA he has the class write an essay on Werewolves. This of course becomes important with Lupin. It is possible that Snape hints in SS something that we not learn about fully until DH.

Posted by Heather from NJ on May 15, 2007 6:54 PM

Heather: I totally agree on this theory, which explains why Dumbledore tells us "Nitwit, Blubber, Oddment, Tweak, Thank You" at the beginning of year 1. Harry reminds us precisely about those words at the end of HBP, and to me it means they have a precise sense in DH.

I thought again about it and we have to admit it would make things pretty complex, since we have to assume that Dumbledore couldn't meet himself:
1) Who gave Dumbledore the potion and why? I would say: Snape prepared it. But neither Snape nor the Dumbledore who drank the potion did know anything about the future. They couldn't imagine that Dumbledore would have to sleep six years, wake up and come back after Voldemort's defeat. Except of course if Dumbledore came back from the future earlier, met Snape, and convinced him to prepare the potion for his alter ego.
2) Did Dumbledore know about the potion before he drank it and how could he trust Snape? No answer there. The Dumbledore coming back from the future can trust Snape because he saw that till the very last time of Voldemort, Snape remained fidel. But how does the Dumbledore coming from the past trust Snape, so that he relies on a -and-bull story (Snape met Dumbledore coming back from the future) or accepts a drink prepared by Snape. Did Fawkes assert on Snape's reliability?
3) Where was Dumbledore sleeping during six years? In the Room of Requirement? Did Snape ask for a place to hide someone for six years?
4) How did Dumbledore behave when he woke up? Imagine yourself being awoken after six years, and facing the one (a former eater) who has just ed you in your future, and then you have to trust him, though he is a perfect occlumens. Again, for that Dumbledore, there is no clear reason to trust Snape.
5) Supposing that Dumbledore from the future met Snape, and Snape woke up Dumbledore from the past, what information did they give to one another? Dumbledore has to know a few things about what happened during those six years, but he cannot learn things that the Dumbledore we see doesn't know. And life would be very unpleasant for Dumbledore if he knew exactly what would happen to him, and had to do everything so that it happen exactly as it did in his memory (you cannot change the past, you can make it happen the way it went).

Posted by herve from strasbourg on May 16, 2007 01:01 AM

One possible clue I liked to Dumbledore�s survival was Chapter Will & Won't - until we meet again, but it seems when he said this he was not aware of snape making the unbreakable vow. Chapters 1-2-3-4 seem all to have taken place the same day on Friday night also next day as well chapter 4. only way this could still be a clue is if snape knew how to fool the unbreakable vow. Going by the potions book it is not totally beyond being possible, smart cookie is severus, well wizard really.
If chapters 2-3 can be a week or more apart it is possible Dumbledore and severus Would have spoken about this, thus still making the clue possible.

Posted by anonymous from uk on May 16, 2007 04:25 AM

Jorge - First, I like your thoughts on the Unforgivable Curses throwing people back if the intent to perform it is not there. But I partially disagree that RAB destroyed the locket, and I also disagree with Kalle. We really don't know what happened to it; it may be at large, whereabouts speculated to no end (or at least until July 21st), or it may be, as you say, destroyed. The note said he intended to destroy it as soon as he could. Was he able to do it before he d? Did Kreature or Mundungus steal it? Was it sold to Aberforth or hidden in the Room of Requirement? We don't know. There is no way of being sure until Jo tells us. The clues point that he didn't have the chance, and it was hidden at 12 Gimmauld Place, but, as I - and many others here - have implied, it wouldn't be the first time Jo led us off track.

Posted by Monkeeshrines from Orlando Fl on May 16, 2007 4:41 PM

herve, your theory explains why dumbledore emphatically trusts snape. i think he ultimately knows where snapes loyalty lies, especially since he has information from the future. he knows that either snape sacrifices himself for the cause. or parhaps he knows that snape remains loyal until voldemort's demise. great job!

Posted by heather from NJ on May 17, 2007 05:31 AM

I'm just extremely confused...I originally thought that snape just mispronounced Avada Kedavra so that it didn't actually have the effect of or maybe just didn't do it in such a "powerful" way since moody in the 4th book said that the students could try an unforgivable curse or two on him but that it wouldn't give him much more than a nose bleed since it takes a very powerful wizard to another very powerful wizard. From what I've read, Dumbledore has at least twice the amount of power that Snape has, so that's still a possibility. But I do agree with whoever said this earlier on that this is too simple of an ending for Dumbledore and for J.K. Rowling's style of writing. It always has a deeper meaning with her--but that's why we love her books. But then again...I don't think she'd lie to us eather, though she does have a way with words. I don't know... I'm just confused...I guess we'll just have to wait on the latest book to find out for sure. However, if you ask me... Dumbledore is , but make an appearance in the next book as either a portrait or a ghost (you never know...when herve said that you had to be afraid of to become a ghost, dumbledore was begging for him not to...is that considered fear?)

Posted by Anonymous on May 17, 2007 6:53 PM

The one thing i really like about your article on Dumbledore's mysterious is the way you pointed out the silent incantation vs. outside said words. I would like to add support to this by pointing out something we heard in HP1, the correct way of pronoucing the words. What if Snape really did say something wrong in the outside incantation of "Avada Kedarva" but said "Expelliarmus" inside?

Posted by Siddhartha from India on May 18, 2007 11:38 AM

Pages:  <<  <  26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  >  >>