So over Reichenbach Falls he goes. Any bets on if she will have to bring him back in the end? Not that I care, really; I've never read the books and don't intend to. Too much other compelling literature out there to read (or re-read, or re-re-read) before I subject myself to a series of books of such onomastic infelicity.

If she manages to kill off her primary character and make him stay dead, it'll probably be a pulp fictional first.

Better yet, how about we find that all along Harry was the real villain, and the whole series was just a dream, and they have to take Dr. McCoy back to the planet, and Darth Vader is his real father, and ... Oh, getting my interminable series mixed up. Nevermind.

I thought you wanted to burn witches?

Anon:

Yes, ever read the Potter books? The muggles ought to burn the racist wizards and witches.

Well, she could send Harry to work for the NHS after he finishes off Voldemort. THAT would kill him for sure.

This was entirely predictable, but I'm still sorry to hear it.

Did I miss something? She's said since book 1 that there would be 7 books. Whether Harry dies or not is to be determined.

Harry's death is certainly possible and if he dies we'll look back and see clues in the previous books, but I'm convinced that he'll become the Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher.

David Cohen:

If I remember correctly, Ms. Rowling has explicitly ruled that one out.

I think Snape is going to turn out to be the hero of the story.

Not Snape -- Draco Malfoy. The key to Book 7 will be that Draco has a come-to-Jesus moment. Harry has to learn to love his enemy and work for his enemy's redemption. Draco has to turn against his father.

Mike:

Effective so long as Draco learns that he's a bastard or adopted and not racially a wizard. Otherwise it's like having the Nazis win.

Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes, and we all know how long that lasted. In a world of wizards and magic, we'll see how long Harry manages to bite the dust if Rowling decides to off the lad in her next book, since there certainly are all types of options for bringing him back to life once the creative itch returns.

John: "creative itch", I think you mean "financial itch". Revival of dead characters in literary series is always financial.

When she has her first post-harry book and it sells 100 copies, then Harry will be reborn.

Yes, ever read the Potter books?

Why yes I have. And strangly enough, I got the impression that Harry Potter was a witch (or wizard to be geneder specific).

So why don't you want to burn him?

Anon:

I do. His arrogance towards muggles makes him torch-worthy.

So if you want to burn him as a wtch, why do you equate him with the Savior?

Harry's arrogance towards muggles makes him torch-worthy?

Huh? What arrogance?

Anon:

That's the point of her books.

Rowling and Dale are both brilliant entertainers. And, Dale has a good ear for stories of the leg-pulling variety. You honestly think that they are giving away the series ending so many years in the future? Notice he doesn't say anything really except Rowling want's to be through with Potter.

To avoid fan pressure, really, she'd have to kill them all, wouldn't she.

Kevin:

Moses doesn't make it to the Promised Land.

Christ is crucified.

Frodo and Bilbo leave.

Cool Hand Luke and RP McMurphy are killed.

The savior never gets to savor what he accomplishes.

I get it now! Sherlock Holmes was Jesus! That would explain his virginity.

Robert:

He's also immaculately conceived, rises from the dead, has disciples, faces off against an anti-christ, etc. But Holmes is only a coincidental Christ-figure.

The Baker Street Irregulars were the Apostles?

Watson was Peter?

Lestrade was who? Pilate?

Moriarty was Satan?

Irena Adler was Mary Magdalene?

Mycroft was James?

Doyle was Paul.

Warner Brothers has registered numerous websites of the form "harrypotterandthekettleoffish.com". Just because JKR only writes seven, doesn't mean there can be only seven movies.

Isn't Dumbledore the martyr, rather than Harry? Or is he the Obi Wan Kenobe?

Harry is Luke Skywalker, Ron is Che Guevara and Hermione is Lady Di.

Dumbledore and Obi Wan are John the Baptists.

Well, Cornelius Fudge is sort of like Caiaphas, no?

His arrogance towards muggles makes him torch-worthy.

If that's true, then the arrogance of muggles towards him is also torch-worthy. Which means that all of us deserve to burn.

That's where the savior comes in.

Doesn't Luke Skywalker buck your trend? Or is he the exception that proves the rule?

Matt:

Don't know about you, but I'm a muggle.

Brit:

Annakin is the Savior, if you'll recall. He's even immaculately conceived.

You're way ahead of me on your dodgy film interpretations. Have you ever seen that Tarantino thing about Top Gun?

Brit:

All Tom Cruise movies are queer.

OJ:

Yeah, what of it? You're the guy who once said God would be totally justified in tossing the whole human race onto the scrap heap and starting the project over again.

Matt:

God, not a bunch of witches.

OJ:

I never said witches.

The point is that everybody deserves to burn and the savior-figure prevents the calamity. Speaking of True Myth...

Matt:

The Savior brings the torch:

49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be
already kindled?

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened
till it be accomplished!

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay;
but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three
against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the
father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the
mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter
in law against her mother in law.

http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/luke12.html

OJ:

Ah, but not everybody gets burned:

14:1 Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me.

14:2 In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.

14:3 And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be.

14:4 And whither I go you know, and the way you know.

16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world.

http://www.catholicdoors.com/bible/john.htm

Yes, we're not talking about burning muggles, just witches.

OJ:

As outlined in the novels, the whole wizard/muggle thing is basically blood-based. Christianity is choice-based: Your actions in this life determine your destination in the next, although truth be told you're a horribly-flawed creature and you don't deserve to be saved. The Savior may rescue you from burning nonetheless. Which incidentally reminds me of the beautiful song adaptation of St. Patrick's Breastplate:

Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.

OJ:

My point being that the choice-based system is preferable to the blood-based one, as I'm sure you'll agree.

And yes, I am aware (i.e., have just realized) that the first line of that stanza mentions a wizard, but note that the wizard's actions are evil and even in the Potter novels wise figures like Dumbledore recognize that actions and not blood are what counts.

Dumbledore who maintains a racist institution and tolerates harrassment of muggles?

Matt:

Not blood or choice, magical ability. Hermoine wouldn't be there if she'd just chosen to be on her own.

OJ:

I think in the last two posts you've just suggested all three of them. You say Hogwarts is racist but then say the issue is magical ability and not race, and then you suggest that it comes down to choice because Hermione could've chosen differently. Sorry, I can't keep up with that.

Dumbledore does the best he can but he's outnumbered by Ministry wizards who consider race paramount and call him a Muggle-lover (he does seem warmly-disposed towards people in general, including Muggles). Your own review of HP & SS certainly seems to present him as a wise man and not an ogre.

Matt:

No it is racist, but isn't blood based. Thus Hermoine can be accepted because magically gifted, but she couldn't have gone if she was a normal muggle with an interest in magic. Yes, Dumbledore is wonderful, if you're a wizard. Jefferson was a good guy too, but not to blacks.

OJ:

As Ms. Rowling has constructed the books, people born without the wizarding talent appear incapable of performing magic. That's not fair in a cosmic sense, but it's her story and she can do what she wants with it. I don't blame Dumbledore for not accepting people into a magic school if they cannot perform magic.

Yes and those with magic ability practice a form of apartheid against those with none, treat them with contempt, etc. Simple racism.