banui r. and the final predictions
So, I looked at my schedule, and have realised to my horror that I am going to be out of town on 21 July. This is all wrong. Fate has conspired against me. I mean, this is a holiday I'm excited about and all -- Dad and I are going to the Grey Fox Bluegrass Festival in upstate New York, and I'm going to see Nickel Creek! and the Duhks and Bela Fleck and loads of other fantastic musicians and I've been looking forward to it for months -- so it isn't as bad as it would have been if I were stuck someplace at which I had little desire to be on 21 July. I plan to bicycle frenziedly to Waldenbooks first thing Monday morning. If I could read while bicycling, I would. I may try. This will result in disaster, of course, but I am not sure I can resist. I will also be dressed in a Tonks-like manner. (This is amusingly easy, because a) I suspect my wardrobe bears a frightening similarity to Tonks', minus the Weird Sisters t-shirts, and b) I look exactly like Tonks! Er, like she could, anyway. Ah, metamorphmagi!) There will be photographs.
So, since it's my first, last, and only chance to do so, I am going to theorise. Prepare to be lorded over for months if anything I predict comes true, even a bit. (TRAP/CARISSA AHAHAHA. Sorry, tiny fandom. Still, I WAS RIGHT.)
Furthermore, because it is awesome:
AHAHA, I'VE RUINED IT FOR YOU ALL NOW!
So, since it's my first, last, and only chance to do so, I am going to theorise. Prepare to be lorded over for months if anything I predict comes true, even a bit. (TRAP/CARISSA AHAHAHA. Sorry, tiny fandom. Still, I WAS RIGHT.)
i. Snape. Right, I reckon I am bound by some Law of Fandom to put in my two knuts. Um. Well. I am sort of on the fence on this one, really, because the evidence is pointing in every direction at once, and it's completely mad, and when I went to read threads on a Potter forum to get my fandom spirit alive again, the only thread in which the participants were in serious danger of being argumentative rather than debating was the Snape thread. But in case I am right, or in case I am wrong and will want to go back and laugh at how incredibly off-target I was, I shall try to put forth some of my muddled thoughts.
For one thing, 'Snape: Good or Evil'? is sort of the wrong title for the debate, in my opinion. We all know that Snape isn't good, at least in the sense of "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious" which dictionary.com gives me. He's a bitter, twisted, petty man who's still nursing a schoolboy grudge and bullies his students. But this does not necessarily place him on Voldemort's side -- as Sirius said, the world isn't made up of good people and Death Eaters. Of course there is the matter of killing Dumbledore. I'm really dubious about Dumbledore having told Snape to do this -- it just feels wrong, and un-Dumbledore-like. And yet -- I don't know. I'm not entirely ready to believe that Snape is completely irredeemable. Which is funny because I was never particularly interested in Snape until HBP -- mostly a counter-reaction to so much of fandom being all ga-ga over him and women wanting to have his babies and trying to brush over the nasty parts of his personality by calling him misunderstood. So, I don't know. Maybe he's totally evil and either working for Voldemort or just really self-serving. Except that from the very first book there was this thing about how Snape, though not even remotely nice, was not actually as evil as Harry & Co. though he was -- Harry thought Snape was trying to steal the Sorcerer's Philosopher's Stone (good grief, Scholastic, AMERICAN CHILDREN ARE NOT IDIOTS, REALLY. I knew what a Philosopher's Stone was long before I knew about Harry Potter, and it makes NO SENSE to re-title a well-known bit of mythology anyway!), and it turned out that he was wrong and Snape was actually trying to help, sort of. So, you know, Snape being Completely Evil in the end after all -- it sort of dampens the message of the first book, doesn't it?
Amusingly enough, the largest argument I've got against Snape being completely evil is a writer's argument. Snape turning out to be just evil after all would be -- flat. A conflicted Snape or a redeemed Snape would be so much more interesting to write about, in my opinion. We all know that JKR is fond of twists. (I feel like saying "Good old J. K.!", because I am that geeky.) I'm having difficulty expressing this, but -- it's just too easy.
ii. REMUS IS NOT GOING TO DIE. JKR, PLEASE, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, I BEG OF YOU. I AM SLEEPING WITH MY MOONY PLUSHY (♥![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lady_moriel !) ALL WEEK, SERIOUSLY. I keep going back and forth, managing to convince myself beyond all doubt that of course Remus is going to live, and then knowing, with an equal absence of doubt and a horrible sick feeling, that he hasn't got a chance and I should start on that memorial shrine post-haste.
iii. I have sinking feelings in regards to Hagrid and Neville. Neville will be key in some way, at any rate, if it doesn't cost him his life -- the emphasised parallels between he and Harry are not there for no reason, I'm sure. Hagrid is just a weird but very insistent gut feeling. I don't know why. Also, I predict that a moderately minor character or two will die, and I will have read really good fic about them, and ergo I shall be utterly devastated.
iv. The other big debate seems to be: "Harry: Is He A Horcrux or Isn't He?". (Why oh why can I see this so clearly as a gossip-rag headline? Oh dear.) As usual, I am not entirely certain what to think. But I just re-read Chamber of Secrets and the bit at the end where Harry says, aghast, when he finds out why he can speak Parseltongue, "Voldemort put bits of himself into me?" -- it does stand out a bit, doesn't it? And Chamber of Secrets is sort of a parallel book to Half-Blood Prince, which JKR did say was the first half of one long book, which ends with Deathly Hallows. One of the major arguments against Harry-as-horcrux seems to be that if he were indeed a horcrux Voldemort would not be trying to kill him all the time, which, yes, I totally see. But if Voldemort accidentally put some of his abilities into baby Harry when he tried to kill him at Godric's Hollow, could he have accidentally put a bit of his soul into him as well? I don't know. Creating horcruxes is supposed to be very complicated magic, but also, I would think, would be transferring one's abilities to another person. Perhaps the Parseltongue does stem from a bit of Voldemort's soul?
And then, the other thing is -- there's been so much speculation on the theme of love in the books, and how love is the thing that Harry has that Voldemort hasn't got, and therefore gives him an advantage. I've read so many theories about how this will turn out in the end, some of them crazier than others. One involved some kind of machine that Harry & Co. would build to channel love as some kind of powerful weapon and, I assume, shoot it at Voldemort or something. Oy! Most of them seemed to hinge on the idea of love as a weapon, which rings utterly false to me. Love isn't a weapon -- love, pure love (I hesitate to say "true love" because of the saccharine romantic connotations) doesn't harm or maim or kill. By it's very nature, it can't. Harry using love specifically as a means of killing Voldemort makes very little sense.
The funny thing was, through the course of the entire thread I read, no-one mentioned anything about the horcruxes and how this could tie into the pervading Power of Love (which, argh, sounds incredibly and unbearably trite, put that way!). I was a bit shocked, because it seems to me -- well, if Harry is a horcrux, he'd have to sacrifice himself in some way. Whether this would end with his death or just serious injury, I don't know, but that kind of sacrifice is the ultimate act of love. And also the ultimate opposite of Voldemort, who is purely selfish -- note now he's clung frantically to any form of not-death he can manage to attain. He would never sacrifice himself for his Cause. Harry would. Therefore love does give him an advantage over Voldemort. Another interesting tidbit -- several years ago, back when we frequented the same forum (although we didn't know each other well then!),faequeene posted about an interview with JKR in which she stated, a bit tongue-in-cheek, "I wish people didn't know I was a Christian; now the last book is spoilt!", or something to that effect. Okay, so this was even before Half-Blood Prince, and despite looking I haven't been able to find this interview, but it certainly offers room for interesting speculation. Harry's ultimate act of love would be to selflessly sacrifice himself -- but perhaps some old, half-forgotten magic (like the Old Magic of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) gives his life back to him if he has enough love to sacrifice it -- a resurrection of sorts. I have to say, I rather like this theory -- if nothing else, that Harry believes that he cannot manage to do what he has to do without dying and does it anyway out of love, even if he believes incorrectly and survives to marry Ginny and have those twelve children Trelawney predicted. :D
Because, gorblimey, that would be a beautiful ending.
v. Did I mention that Remus doesn't die? COS HE DOESN'T.
vi. R.A.B. is Regulus. I mean, it can't not be. I actually keep forgetting that this hasn't been confirmed. Fandom's pretty much taken it as fact, anyway. I will probably be very upset if R.A.B. turns out to be some unknown by the name of Raquel Anderson-Blake, and things will be smashed. Anyway, if R.A.B. = Regulus -- more background information on the Noble and Most Ancient House of Black plzkthx? Few things would thrill me more.
vii. Sirius is not dead. Not even remotely. He flew through the curtain and landed on the other side, in the TARDIS. He and Sarah-Jane Smith will be crucial to the end of the story.
For one thing, 'Snape: Good or Evil'? is sort of the wrong title for the debate, in my opinion. We all know that Snape isn't good, at least in the sense of "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious" which dictionary.com gives me. He's a bitter, twisted, petty man who's still nursing a schoolboy grudge and bullies his students. But this does not necessarily place him on Voldemort's side -- as Sirius said, the world isn't made up of good people and Death Eaters. Of course there is the matter of killing Dumbledore. I'm really dubious about Dumbledore having told Snape to do this -- it just feels wrong, and un-Dumbledore-like. And yet -- I don't know. I'm not entirely ready to believe that Snape is completely irredeemable. Which is funny because I was never particularly interested in Snape until HBP -- mostly a counter-reaction to so much of fandom being all ga-ga over him and women wanting to have his babies and trying to brush over the nasty parts of his personality by calling him misunderstood. So, I don't know. Maybe he's totally evil and either working for Voldemort or just really self-serving. Except that from the very first book there was this thing about how Snape, though not even remotely nice, was not actually as evil as Harry & Co. though he was -- Harry thought Snape was trying to steal the Sorcerer's Philosopher's Stone (good grief, Scholastic, AMERICAN CHILDREN ARE NOT IDIOTS, REALLY. I knew what a Philosopher's Stone was long before I knew about Harry Potter, and it makes NO SENSE to re-title a well-known bit of mythology anyway!), and it turned out that he was wrong and Snape was actually trying to help, sort of. So, you know, Snape being Completely Evil in the end after all -- it sort of dampens the message of the first book, doesn't it?
Amusingly enough, the largest argument I've got against Snape being completely evil is a writer's argument. Snape turning out to be just evil after all would be -- flat. A conflicted Snape or a redeemed Snape would be so much more interesting to write about, in my opinion. We all know that JKR is fond of twists. (I feel like saying "Good old J. K.!", because I am that geeky.) I'm having difficulty expressing this, but -- it's just too easy.
ii. REMUS IS NOT GOING TO DIE. JKR, PLEASE, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, I BEG OF YOU. I AM SLEEPING WITH MY MOONY PLUSHY (♥
lady_moriel !) ALL WEEK, SERIOUSLY. I keep going back and forth, managing to convince myself beyond all doubt that of course Remus is going to live, and then knowing, with an equal absence of doubt and a horrible sick feeling, that he hasn't got a chance and I should start on that memorial shrine post-haste. iii. I have sinking feelings in regards to Hagrid and Neville. Neville will be key in some way, at any rate, if it doesn't cost him his life -- the emphasised parallels between he and Harry are not there for no reason, I'm sure. Hagrid is just a weird but very insistent gut feeling. I don't know why. Also, I predict that a moderately minor character or two will die, and I will have read really good fic about them, and ergo I shall be utterly devastated.
iv. The other big debate seems to be: "Harry: Is He A Horcrux or Isn't He?". (Why oh why can I see this so clearly as a gossip-rag headline? Oh dear.) As usual, I am not entirely certain what to think. But I just re-read Chamber of Secrets and the bit at the end where Harry says, aghast, when he finds out why he can speak Parseltongue, "Voldemort put bits of himself into me?" -- it does stand out a bit, doesn't it? And Chamber of Secrets is sort of a parallel book to Half-Blood Prince, which JKR did say was the first half of one long book, which ends with Deathly Hallows. One of the major arguments against Harry-as-horcrux seems to be that if he were indeed a horcrux Voldemort would not be trying to kill him all the time, which, yes, I totally see. But if Voldemort accidentally put some of his abilities into baby Harry when he tried to kill him at Godric's Hollow, could he have accidentally put a bit of his soul into him as well? I don't know. Creating horcruxes is supposed to be very complicated magic, but also, I would think, would be transferring one's abilities to another person. Perhaps the Parseltongue does stem from a bit of Voldemort's soul?
And then, the other thing is -- there's been so much speculation on the theme of love in the books, and how love is the thing that Harry has that Voldemort hasn't got, and therefore gives him an advantage. I've read so many theories about how this will turn out in the end, some of them crazier than others. One involved some kind of machine that Harry & Co. would build to channel love as some kind of powerful weapon and, I assume, shoot it at Voldemort or something. Oy! Most of them seemed to hinge on the idea of love as a weapon, which rings utterly false to me. Love isn't a weapon -- love, pure love (I hesitate to say "true love" because of the saccharine romantic connotations) doesn't harm or maim or kill. By it's very nature, it can't. Harry using love specifically as a means of killing Voldemort makes very little sense.
The funny thing was, through the course of the entire thread I read, no-one mentioned anything about the horcruxes and how this could tie into the pervading Power of Love (which, argh, sounds incredibly and unbearably trite, put that way!). I was a bit shocked, because it seems to me -- well, if Harry is a horcrux, he'd have to sacrifice himself in some way. Whether this would end with his death or just serious injury, I don't know, but that kind of sacrifice is the ultimate act of love. And also the ultimate opposite of Voldemort, who is purely selfish -- note now he's clung frantically to any form of not-death he can manage to attain. He would never sacrifice himself for his Cause. Harry would. Therefore love does give him an advantage over Voldemort. Another interesting tidbit -- several years ago, back when we frequented the same forum (although we didn't know each other well then!),
faequeene posted about an interview with JKR in which she stated, a bit tongue-in-cheek, "I wish people didn't know I was a Christian; now the last book is spoilt!", or something to that effect. Okay, so this was even before Half-Blood Prince, and despite looking I haven't been able to find this interview, but it certainly offers room for interesting speculation. Harry's ultimate act of love would be to selflessly sacrifice himself -- but perhaps some old, half-forgotten magic (like the Old Magic of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) gives his life back to him if he has enough love to sacrifice it -- a resurrection of sorts. I have to say, I rather like this theory -- if nothing else, that Harry believes that he cannot manage to do what he has to do without dying and does it anyway out of love, even if he believes incorrectly and survives to marry Ginny and have those twelve children Trelawney predicted. :D Because, gorblimey, that would be a beautiful ending.
v. Did I mention that Remus doesn't die? COS HE DOESN'T.
vi. R.A.B. is Regulus. I mean, it can't not be. I actually keep forgetting that this hasn't been confirmed. Fandom's pretty much taken it as fact, anyway. I will probably be very upset if R.A.B. turns out to be some unknown by the name of Raquel Anderson-Blake, and things will be smashed. Anyway, if R.A.B. = Regulus -- more background information on the Noble and Most Ancient House of Black plzkthx? Few things would thrill me more.
vii. Sirius is not dead. Not even remotely. He flew through the curtain and landed on the other side, in the TARDIS. He and Sarah-Jane Smith will be crucial to the end of the story.
Furthermore, because it is awesome:
 | My Harry Potter Spoiler of Doom is: Sirius Black accidentally destroys all of Scotland with the help of a small zombie bat. Get your Harry Potter Spoiler of Doom |
AHAHA, I'VE RUINED IT FOR YOU ALL NOW!