Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

[Stamen0083]

I'm surprised there's no spoilers thread for this book already, so here goes.

First of all, Harry and Ginny? What the hell is that? Was that not totally out of the blue?

Secondly, the revelation of the Half-Blood Prince was... stupid, at best. All this tension was built up, and then... "I'm the Half-Blood Prince, Potter. You so stupid." What the hell?

Dumbledore's death was not totally unexpected. What is unexpected is that he actually died. However, for some reason, I feel that when Dumbledore was saying "Please" to Snape, he wasn't asking Snape to help him. I think he was asking Snape to kill him.

Why? Damned if I know. Maybe the last book will tell us. Anyone got a tentative release date yet?

[Skull Leader]

I can't speak to the Harry/Ginny issue, although I WILL say by breaking them up by the end of the book, Rowling leaves Harry with no attachments and is perfectly free to die (not that I think this will happen).

I knew the moment they first showed Dumbledore and his injured hand that he would be the one to bite it. It's a very sad moment in the book, but I think it was necessary in order to make Harry truly come out in the open and fend for himself (expect all three kids to become full fledged members of the Order before too much longer)

Also, I don't think Snape is as bad as he seems... Dumbledore was GOING to die there... if not by Malfoy's hands, then by some other death eater there on the roof. I think Snape was obeying his promise to Draco's mom by taking the responsibility... in doing so he's really kept Draco from becoming a murderer, basically saving the kid's soul from evil. I think he HAD to do it, and what's more I think Dumbledore knew it too. Dumbledore always had implicit faith in Snape, and the reasons for that faith have yet to be explained. It will be interesting to see that tidbit explained in the final book.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Dangard Ace]

I think Harry's scar is one of the Horcruxes. Why? Gut feeling.

[Skull Leader]

Now THERE is something I hadn't considered... and while it's an interesting idea, doesn't that kind of nullify the whole prophecy thing? (That in order for one to live, the other must die). Seems to me that removing a scar like that would probably not be as simple as a little cosmetic surgery.

[VF-19]

I think Harry's scar is one of the Horcruxes.  Why?  Gut feeling.

312598[/snapback]

Not likely. I don't think Voldemort had the time to set a part of his soul in Harry. It seems to me that it would take much longer than a split second to cast a spell to put part of his soul in Harry.

While Horcruxes can be in living beings (snakes etc), it cannot be Harry for the simple fact that the prophecy states that somebody is going to die, either Harry or Voldemort. For Harry to die, he has to screw up. For Voldemort to die, Harry cannot have the Horcrux in him, as then Voldemort CAN'T die, as a part of his soul remains in this mortal coil. He'd be back to square one: worse than dead.

[Skull Leader]

Something else to consider about that... why would he set Harry's scar has a Horcrux if he planned on killing him?

[twich]

I think that I have to agree with what was said earlier.....I think that Dumbledore was pleading with Snape to be the one to kill him so that Draco wouldnt have to, I think that Snape is still on the "Good Guys" side, but I think that act will remove all doubt from any of Voldemorts followers, and Voldemort himself.

I dont know how the whole "Not going to go to school thing" sits with me, but you know the first event in the next book is going to be Bill and Fluer's wedding.

I think that in the end of the book, we will see that Hermione and Ron will be together and we will see Harry and Ginny together as well, Harry let go of Ginny because he truly does care for her and doesnt want to see her get hurt....so I think we will see that they end up with each other. I would not be a bit surprised if we see the Ginny accompanies them on their quest, even against Harry's protests...but that is pure conjecture on my part.

Twich

[Mechamaniac]

Something else to consider about that... why would he set Harry's scar has a Horcrux if he planned on killing him?

312819[/snapback]

Well, something else to consider...

What if Voldemort has no intention of killing Harry?.

Obviously, the attack on Harry was the last that Voldemort performed before he was "destroyed". Remember that Voldemort had to killl 7 people in order to fully divide his soul and preserve parts of himself. It's safe to say that he had already killed at least 5 before Harry's parents, who would have been & 6 and 7. What if the spell he cast on Harry was NOT a killing curse, but instead, a spell that embedded that last shred of his soul into the scar on Harry's forehead?.

What if Voldemort has no intention of killing Harry?. What if he plans to take Harry's body?. Remember in HBP, someone mentions Voldemort "using Potter's blood to become immortal". I don't remember that happening in the previous books.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that's what it turned out to be.

Also, even though Snape killed Dumbledore, I hadn't seen the angle of Dumbledore pleading for him to do so, until I read Stamen's post, and it makes sense.

Part of me still wants to give Snape the benefit of the doubt. Dumbledore trusted him after all. However, JK foreshadowed this possibility in one of Harry's early meetings with Dumbledore in HBP. Dumbledore says something to the effect of being "more clever than most" but that makes his mistakes much bigger. So, was he truly misguided in trusting Snape?, was that one of his bigger mistakes?.

Also, it seems odd to me that someone like Dumbledore (even weakened) would be unable to cast a spell minus a wand to disarm a little $hit like Malfoy. I hope Dumbledore wasn't going the Obi Wan Kenobi route, that would seem cheap. It was bad enough that Harry went the Peter Parker route at the end with Ginny.

[VF-19]

Also, it seems odd to me that someone like Dumbledore (even weakened) would be unable to cast a spell minus a wand to disarm a little $hit like Malfoy.

The thing is, wizards and witches can't cast proper spells (apparently apart from appirating) without their wands, and that includes Dumbledore. They can do unfocused magic caused by extreme emotions or stress, but that's it. House elves, on the other hand, are much much more powerful. They can cast spells that would require a wizard or witch to use their wands. House elves don't need wands. Makes you wonder why the elves are slaves and not in control...

[Max Jenius]

Can anyone explain the Malfoy/Snape/Dumbledoor thing a little more? I don't want to read the book, but it sounds odd hehe.

[MrDisco]

all, Harry and Ginny? What the hell is that? Was that not totally out of the blue?

no i found that to be pretty logical and not that unexpected.

Secondly, the revelation of the Half-Blood Prince was... stupid, at best. All this tension was built up, and then... "I'm the Half-Blood Prince, Potter. You so stupid." What the hell?

it was slightly less dramatic then i expected, however it fit with the overall theme of the book. it was about snape and his betrayal (supposed?) at the end. it was another puzzle piece to toss in with all the rest of the books.

Dumbledore's death was not totally unexpected. What is unexpected is that he actually died. However, for some reason, I feel that when Dumbledore was saying "Please" to Snape, he wasn't asking Snape to help him. I think he was asking Snape to kill him.

this did suprise me. i was expecting dumbledore to be a fake. i also think there is more to snape then him simply being a double-agent.

What did shock me was the use of the word 'slurm' in this book. i have no problems with the word, but it was totally out of place for a kids book.

[Skull Leader]

Can anyone explain the Malfoy/Snape/Dumbledoor thing a little more? I don't want to read the book, but it sounds odd hehe.

313234[/snapback]

(Max, I will write this under the assumption that you haven't read any of the books... if you have, I appologize. Just skip ahead to the stuff that pertains specifically to the book)

Well, if you don't read the books, you may not know that Severus Snape used to be one of Lord Voldemort's followers (the "death eaters"). After Voldemort dissapeared several years ago, Snape appeared to correct his ways and went to work as a professor under Headmaster Dumbledore. Dumbledore, acknowledged in the HP series as pretty much one of the wisest wizards around, never once doubted his loyalty to the school. Draco Malfoy, one of the students, recently took on a mission from Lord Voldemort that he was to try and kill Dumbledore. Draco's mom thought this was pretty much an instant death sentence (since no mere kid would be able to open a can on the greatest wizard alive), so she pleaded with Snape to find a way to get Draco out of this mission and save him. So later on, a much weakened Dumbledore finds himself at the hands of Draco Malfoy and a number of other death eaters. Draco cannot bring himself to kill Dumbledore, so Snape pushes him out of the way and kills Dumbledore himself.

While it is entirely possible that Dumbledore (who so far as we know is just as human as everyone else) made a mistake in trusting Snape, most of us believe it's probably not that simple. What follows is probably one of the biggest conspiracy theories and cockamamie tales of clarivoyance ever to be attached to a children's book:

As I've said previously, I think Snape killed Dumbledore because ultimately he wanted to save Draco Malfoy from ever having to have a murder on his head. Save the boy's soul and there is ultimately a possibility (however small), that Malfoy might actually do some good. Snape, on the other hand, already had a tainted history. Ultimately I believe he was fulfilling his oath to Dumbledore by sacrificing himself and protecting Draco's innocence.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Skull Leader]

First of all, Harry and Ginny? What the hell is that? Was that not totally out of the blue?

312554[/snapback]

I wanted to speak a little more on this also. I think the Harry/Ginny thing was pretty much a definate ever since Cho Chang stepped away. At that age, Harry almost HAS to have a love interest, and no one else fits the bill like Ginny Weasley. If the 7th book goes to a "happily ever after" ending, They'll in all likelyhood get married (after all, it's been foreshadowed in almost every way that Harry is considered part of the Weasley family... why not make it more concrete?). If things get REAL gritty in the 7th book, you could have everything from Ginny sacrificing herself to give Harry some needed opportunity, to Harry developing a SERIOUS "burning sense of justice" attitude and finding himself unable to love again, to Harry dying in her arms after the final conflict. It really could go any number of ways.

[Stamen0083]

...no one else fits the bill like Ginny Weasley...

I don't understand. As far as I can recall, Harry never seemed to have an interest in Ginny.

Ginny, of course, has had a crush on Harry since the first time she was introduced.

[MrDisco]

I don't understand. As far as I can recall, Harry never seemed to have an interest in Ginny.

think about it from the perspective of young kids growing up. they're at school and harry is away for the summer. at first Ginny is nothing but his friend's younger sister..cute, maybe slightly annoying. Then he comes back to school this past year and notices *bang* little Ginny isn't so little anymore. she's filling up and out and she's starting to look attractive. on top of that she's on his team, and she's intelligent.

makes perfect sense to me. we have to assume that not every nuance of their life will be detailed.

[twich]

One thing that kinda stumped my noodle was the whole Harry vs Snape at the end of the book.....he wasnt even able to get out his curses before it seemed that Snape was blocking them.....we know that he is able and has done the Crucio curse, he did it to Bellatrix in the last book after she killed Sirius....it was kinda funny because Snape was sort of mocking Harry with "Mr. Potter, one of the unforgivable curses...tsk, tsk"

It just seemed odd to me that he wasnt able to do anything to Snape after he had been able to in previous books(Prisoner of Azkaban)...unless of course it was for plot reasons, in which case, I would have to assume(big assumption) that Snape really did what he did so that Draco would not be evil and to convince once and for all to the bad guys that he is "a part" of them, while really working for the good guys.

I guess we shall see in a few years what really is going to happen.

As far as this series supposing to be "for Kids" I think it was stated when it first came out that the books would mature as the story progressed.....since Harry is 16, almost 17 it is assumed that those would be the age level reading it......the books are supposed to grow with its intended audience as well as the characters. To tell you the truth, I think these books are pretty tame in comparison to some Science Fiction/Fantasy that is out today(George R.R. Martin Fire and Ice series comes to mind)

Twich

Edited July 23, 2005 by twich

[Mechamaniac]

One thing that kinda stumped my noodle was the whole Harry vs Snape at the end of the book.....he wasnt even able to get out his curses before it seemed that Snape was blocking them.....we know that he is able and has done the Crucio curse, he did it to Bellatrix in the last book after she killed Sirius....it was kinda funny because Snape was sort of mocking Harry with "Mr. Potter, one of the unforgivable curses...tsk, tsk"

It just seemed odd to me that he wasnt able to do anything to Snape after he had been able to in previous books(Prisoner of Azkaban)...unless of course it was for plot reasons, in which case, I would have to assume(big assumption) that Snape really did what he did so that Draco would not be evil and to convince once and for all to the bad guys that he is "a part" of them, while really working for the good guys.

That's part of the reason why I still can't close the book on Snape entirely. Even after he killed Dumbledore, and was fleeing with Malfoy, he refused to attack Harry. Granted, he said that Harry was for the Dark Lord, but he still made no overt action to harm Harry, even to hex or curse him.

When Harry tried to throw the Crucio curse, Snape said "No unforgivable curses from you Potter." and when Harry kept trying to throw other curses at Snape, Snape kept blocking them, and telling (or taunting) Harry... "Blocked, again, and again, and again, until you learn to keep your mouth shut, and your mind closed Potter".

Snape was still teaching Harry, still training him. Snape spent last year training Harry in Occlumency, something which Snape is very good at. This year, they are learning to cast spells without the incantations. In short, if Harry is ever to face Voldemort, he had better learn to block his thoughts, and cast his spells silently.

I don't doubt that Snape hates Harry, but I think it is his mission to train Harry to face the Dark Lord. I think what Snape was saying, in essence, was "You think I'm bad?, wait until you face Voldemort!". And his comment regarding the Crucio curse was his attempt to keep Harry pure, to keep him from using an unforgivable curse.

[Skull Leader]

LOL, it's pretty scary that I'm not the only one that thinks that way... maybe I'm (we) on to something for once...