Search Beyond Hogwarts:

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

Pages:  <<  <  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ...  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 13)

This theory makes perfect sense to me, and I hope (AND PRAY) that it is correct. I know that Jan-Marie addressed this when she spoke of Dumbledore defeating and perhaps ing the dark wizard Grindlewald, but I was just curious: could the destroying of the Sorceror's Stone be considered the "" (I use that term for lack of a better one) of Nicolas Flamel? If the answer to that question is yes, then isn't it possible that Dumbledore could have created his Horcrux soon after Book 1? Just a thought... =]

Posted by Nicole from Copperas Cove, TX on December 14, 2006 6:55 PM

Does none of you want to agree on my point that destroying Voldemort's horcrux is an indirect form of ing?

Posted by Akshat from Jaipur,India on December 15, 2006 01:03 AM

I don't think Fawkes is DD horcrux.....(I don't think he would use the darks arts in any way)...but I do think that Dumbledore himself is a phoenix. Just like Fawkes was looking sick and withered before he burst into flames and was reborn, Dumbledore was also suffering and withering in the latter part of HBP. He was probably asking Snape to
"" him because he knew he was coming to the end of this life and was going to "" and be reborn anyway. So the plan was hatched so he could make Snape look good to the eaters at the same time.

Posted by Sharon from Michigan on December 15, 2006 11:58 AM

I think that this theory makes perfect sense. It is pure genius. And even if this theory is not correct, I believe that Ann should writer her OWN Harry Potter books, because some of the things that she thinks of are amazing. Tell me if this is a dumb idea.

Posted by HP fan from ravenclaw tower on December 15, 2006 7:14 PM

Akshat, I don't think destroying a Horcrux is an indirect form of "ing". It definitely rob you of your insurance of life but that does not amount to the actual act of ing someone. Because even if you destroy a Horcrux, the actual maker not just easily. He still have to be ed very much like a mortal man.

Posted by Aditi from Nagpur, India on December 16, 2006 03:00 AM

If Dumbledore had a horcrux, doesn't that mean he would of had to split his soul by . Who could he have mudered. Don't say the fact that he was an auror ment he had mudered someone, because aurors only bad guys, not muder innocent people like Voldemort did.

Posted by Stacey from New York on December 17, 2006 08:53 AM

Referring to DD defeat (not ing) of Grindlewald, i feel this reference is just JK having fun, the defeat was in 1945, the end of the muggle World War 2 and i think Jo just wanted to mirror this event in the wizard world and just like no-one ed Hitler, he was still defeated, like Grindelwald (who sounds to me like a German wizard from his name). I think just like the Quidditch World Cup this is just information to add to the story and not really important to the main storyline, after all these books are supposed to be enjoyable.

Posted by Clair from North West on December 19, 2006 04:16 AM

I think that this theory is very convincing and I agree that the 'defeat of Grindelwald' is a very good observation. JK is known for her foreshadowing and looking back to the earlier books, which makes this theory even more believable. There is one thing though about the fact that maybe if you just were part of an accidental ing, your soul would be damaged dispite the fact it was not intentional, do you not think that Dumbledore or Slughorn would mention that somewhere or another?

Posted by Sarah from Atlanta Georgia on December 20, 2006 10:08 AM

Stacey,
Did I miss some thing?
Where did "the fact that he(DD) was an auror" come from?
If you found that some where please tell me where..
I've been trying to find out what DD was doing for the 73 or so years we don't know about..

Akshat,
Destroying some ones Horcrux is not like cutting the brake lines on their car...
The person is still alive, you're just reversing an unnatural act and destroying an artifact that holds a piece of some ones soul that they already removed from their own person..

Posted by Kevin from Wisconsin on December 20, 2006 10:28 AM

Dumbledore cannot have made a Horcrux, because he would not have "ed" anyone. ing is different from ing. Even in the chocolate frog cards, it says that Dumbledore "defeated" Gridelwad, it did not mention "" or ""

Posted by Rajesh from India on December 24, 2006 11:07 PM

1) I am unable to understand why are some of you linking Dumbledore to Fawkes, suggesting that Dumbledore is a phoenix himself, while its clear that Dumbledore's is clearly a human.

2)So destroying a horcrux is not a ing.
Well answer this:
A single horcrux is enough for survival, so destroying something that has the potential of sustaining life all by its own just like someone's full soul should be considered as a .
However the "ed" in this case is still alive that means that the act is not necessarily an evil one, and Dumbledore might return whole.

One more thing, if Snape has indeed ed Dumbledore without his consent and on the (indirect) order of Voldemort than Dumbledore should have blocked the spell by his '' hand.

Posted by Akshat from Jaipur,India on December 25, 2006 11:12 AM

I find the Horcrux and Phoenix theories interesting. My one question about the Pheonix theory is how would DD appear when he was reborn? Will Harry meet up with a much younger DD? How fast can the new DD grow in age? Does he fast forward to his present form? or is he a child? Will Harry only recognize him as his past mentor because of his favorite flavor--raspberry, was it?

Posted by Heather from NJ on December 26, 2006 5:21 PM

Pages:  <<  <  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ...  >  >>