Harry Potter theories and predictions
Edited July 1, 2007:
I actually drafted this up back in February, intending to post it on my MySpace blog, but (like most things I plan to do) never got around to it. But now that everyone including TV news commentator Keith Olbermann is coming out with their own predictions of how the Harry Potter series is going to end, I realized the time to place my wager is now or never. So here are my theories about what's been going on and what's going to happen in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (due out on July 21):
Warning: Spoilers for Books 1-6 (the rest is pure speculation, with a bit of wishful thinking thrown in)
Peter Pettigrew: Though Peter is a despicable character in many ways, I believe he will--in fact, he must make amends to Harry, thereby playing a significant role in the defeat of Voldemort. For one thing, he owes a debt to Harry for sparing his life when Professor Lupin and Sirius Black were about to kill him in the Shrieking Shack (and, as Dumbledore informed Harry, a Life Debt is not something to be taken lightly; the day may come when he is glad he spared Pettigrew).
As Voldemort's closest confidant, Peter is in a unique (albeit perilous) position to assist in his downfall. Also, rather than replacing Peter's sacrificed hand with a human one, Voldemort gave him a flexible silver one, making me wonder what special powers it confers. (The only power that's been revealed so far is the ability to completely pulverize a twig between his fingers. That in itself could come in rather, er, "handy"--sorry.)
I know I'm somewhat biased, as both a fan of the actor, Timothy Spall, who plays him, and someone who loves small animals, especially rodents, and hence was always partial to Scabbers, so I'm among the small minority who see Peter as simply a cowardly, weak-willed and somewhat marginalized person; his nickname says as much: All the Marauders have noble-sounding names except for him; "Wormtail" sounds more like an insult--and, as we've seen by their treatment of Snape, the Marauders could be pretty cruel, including James. (Peter is clearly self-destructive as well, as evidenced by his readiness to cut off parts of his own body, first his finger and then his whole hand. In fact, his motivations are well-expressed in the fanfic "Tears of a Rat.") As a result, Peter is easily led by anybody who shows him the slightest bit of kindness or offers him the promise of bettering himself. (And, in order to avoid the Dementors in Book 3, once he escaped from Harry and friends, he had no place left to go but back to Voldemort. Even Voldemort knows his loyalty stems from fear: "You are regretting you ever returned to me," the great Legilimens tells his servant. "Your devotion is nothing more than cowardice. You would not be here if you had anywhere else to go.")
It isn't portrayed this way in the fourth film (in fact, Tim Spall isn't given the opportunity to do much with the character at all, which I think is a crime because he played the him so perfectly in Prisoner of Azkaban), but in Book 4, Peter is depicted as frightened of Voldemort, not so eager to do his master's bidding, and even pleads for Harry's life when Voldemort first reveals his plan to kill him. (He also simpers and cowers and screams in agony in the book when forced to cut off his own hand, yet in the movie, he does it with absurd casualness, with one quick slice and nary a drop of blood, as if his arm were made of clay and he were chopping up ingredients for a stew!)
Furthermore, Harry's parents made Peter their Secret Keeper; they wouldn't have made this choice lightly or been easily fooled, so Peter must have had some redeeming qualities. I believe he was seduced by the "dark side" and, before he realized his mistake, found himself in Voldemort's nearly unbreakable thrall. (He also spent twelve peaceful years as the Weasleys' beloved pet rat and would have been content to stay that way if it weren't for Crookshanks.)
Snape: Snape is not loyal to Voldemort. Though he once joined the Death Eaters (as another marginalized youth, looking for a place to fit in), he bravely renounced that decision and came to Dumbledore for protection. In return, he took an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry, even though he despises Harry's father James for the way he and the Marauders tormented him throughout their years at Hogwarts. In fact, during Harry's detentions in Book 5 and again at the end of Book 6, when he snaps "Your father would never attack me unless it was four on one," Snape repeatedly tries to get Harry to acknowledge how the father he never knew yet idolizes treated him, yet Harry never catches on to the fact that Snape, much as he dislikes the boy--and is severely lacking in social skills--has been going out of his way to help him.
Yet, Snape is not only bound by his Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry (and now, reluctantly, a conflicting one to protect Harry's enemy Draco), but has mixed feelings towards Harry because he was in love with Harry's mother Lily (who shared his knack for potion-making). In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with a theory I recently read, that his "Worst Memory" is not being humiliated in front of the whole school by having his dirty underwear exposed (certainly, he's been through worse experiences, including possibly witnessing his mother being abused by his father)--but rather his reflexively calling Lily a "mudblood" when she tried to come to his defense, thus destroying any chance he might have had with her. (As we now know, Snape too, like Voldemort, is not a pureblood wizard.)
This is another reason Snape is so bitter towards Harry, constantly telling him how much he reminds him of his father--the man who, in Snape's mind, not only took Lily away from him but was the chief perpetrator of the "Worst Memory" incident--at the same time looking up at him through Lily's eyes. His instinctive protection of Harry is made obvious in the fourth film when he emerges from the Shrieking Shack and automatically rushes to place himself between the children and danger--and, though she wasn't specific, JKR said in the DVD extras that she was pleased with the way the filmmakers had portrayed her vision in Prisoner of Azkaban and had even unwittingly foreshadowed things that were to come in future books. By contrast, as mentioned, the films are becoming less and less faithful to the books; Snape acts completely out of character in Goblet of Fire--and, as shown in the previews, he does so once more in Order of the Phoenix--when he hits the children over the head with a book in study hall, apparently for comic effect. The only time in any of the books in which he physically harms a student is in OotP, when he loses his temper upon discovering Harry surreptitiously observing his worst memory in the Pensieve and throws him against a wall, then hurls a jar of dead cockroaches at him--but misses. Which brings up another piece of evidence that Snape is on the side of good, not evil: As Dumbledore explains, Quirrell, who was "full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort," could not touch Harry without destroying himself. Yet Snape can. As can Pettigrew (Book 4, p. 638).
Further, I firmly believe he killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's own orders (and probably took an Unbreakable Vow to do so, before Dumbledore left on his final mission, much as Harry was forced to promise to make him keep drinking the mysterious potion no matter what the result). He did so in order to prevent Draco Malfoy from uttering the Unforgiveable Curse himself and following in his father's footsteps. (Poor Snape, with so many Vows to fulfill all at once!) When Dumbledore begs him, "Severus . . . please . . ." he's actually begging him to fulfill his Vow (since Dumbledore is either already as good as dead, or wants Draco and therefore Voldemort to believe he's been killed); Snape hesitates because he truly doesn't want to keep his vow to Dumbledore any more than Harry did. (We also know from statements he's made that Dumbledore does not fear death but sees it as "the next great adventure." And he already spends most of Book 6 in a weakened state due to destroying the ring Horcrux, so he may have been dying all along and known it; once he reached that rooftop, he knew he could do no more good by remaining alive and called on Snape to end his suffering for the benefit of all.)
Soon afterwards, what he did for Draco, Snape does again for Harry, although Harry still doesn't appreciate it--repeatedly cutting Harry off before he can utter an Unforgiveable Curse, not only to protect himself but also to prevent Harry from damning himself. (This is why he gets so angry when Harry calls him a coward since he is anything but--now forced to go on playing double agent without the protection of Dumbledore, Hogwarts, and the Order.)
I also believe that Snape knew all along that Harry had his old potions book and, in fact, intended for him to have it.
And, just for fun, if Snape has an Animagus form (or if his Patronus is revealed), I predict it's either a crow or a raven, based on repeated descriptions of his slick black hair; large, hooked nose; and swirling black robes that remind me of wings. Then again, the raven being a symbol of death, I'm not so sure I want to be right on that one; I'm also not ruling out a bat (Quirrell, who's known him since their schooldays together, describes him as "swooping about like an overgrown bat") or a *shiver* spider (which would explain his residence at Spinner's End).
Who will die: J. K. Rowling has revealed that two major characters will die but that one who was slated to die actually "got a reprieve." The only character I'm willing to bet won't die is Harry himself, but I also doubt Hermione or Ron will die either. (Ginny? I sure hope not; I want her and Harry to live happily ever after.) And I'm hoping beyond hope that it isn't Snape (the most beguiling character in the whole series and the reason I keep reading)!
It seems kind of a foregone conclusion that Peter Pettigrew must die--after he satisfies his Life Debt to Harry. Because even if he thus atones (at least partially) for his betrayal, he still faces a life sentence in Azkaban for using an Unforgivable Curse--more than once--so death would actually be a reprieve for him. (I think JKR is above creating red herrings; thus, considering his having incurred a Life Debt in the third book and the fact that he continues to appear, if only briefly, up through Book 6, added to Dumbledore's statement to Harry, she is going to put the character to good use in Book 7. In fact, considering he is one of the few people who knows how to get to Godric's Hollow and was also a loyal pet to Harry's best friend for 12 years, I can imagine him being the one to lead Harry there. (Also, living with Snape, he is well placed to receive secret Occlumency lessons whilst pretending to spy on him and thereby become better armed to betray Voldemort.)
Of course, considering a war between the powers of good and evil seems imminent, I'm sure a lot of "minor" characters are ripe to be killed off, so it's difficult to guess what characters JKR considers important enough to get a mention as being the "two" to die. I can easily picture any of the "bad guys" getting whacked, including Draco's parents (making him an orphan just like his enemy Harry), Bellatrix LaStrange, and any of the other Death Eaters. As for Voldemort, that seems almost too obvious to be true (see "The Last Horcrux" below for details). And there are other "expendable" characters, such as Fleur Delacour, whose loss would be tragic but, due to their late appearance in the story, wouldn't break the hearts of too many hard-core readers.
In short, your guess is as good as mine on this one. The only thing I can say for sure is that if Snape is among the survivors, I'll be happy. (And I think JKR would be too since she has referred to him as "a gift of a character.")
Dumbledore: Dumbledore may be dead . . . but like his pet phoenix, I'm convinced he will, one way or another, "rise from the ashes" to play a role in Book 7. (It would be just too much of a coincidence to have him so closely identified with the phoenix yet not have him become one in Animagus form! Not to mention the symbolism of his burnt hand in Book 6.)
A major clue about Dumbledore's fate is given in Book 2 when he tells Harry, "I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me . . . Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it." (Another reason to suspect Snape sought asylum from Voldemort there.) There are other reasons to believe that Dumbledore will return: He himself urges Draco not to use the Unforgiveable Curse--telling him that there are ways to hide him and his mother by faking their deaths (Book 6, pp. 591-592). This could clearly then have been done for Dumbledore as well; his offer to Draco seems like such a "dead" (sorry) giveaway that that's exactly what was done for him! I mean, he was seen to fly off the rooftop and then his body was seen lying on the ground below, but I can't find any evidence that anyone actually saw him fly from the rooftop directly to the ground; thus, couldn't the body on the ground be a decoy? Also, on the rooftop Dumbledore tells Draco, "I certainly did have a drink . . . and I came back . . . after a fashion." The addition of "after a fashion" could refer not only to his having a drink but also to the words "came back." Maybe in drinking the mysterious liquid (the Draft of Living Death perhaps?), he's already dead. (And if Dumbledore's not dead, or if he was already "dead" and begging to be released from his half-state, then Snape's not really guilty of performing an Unforgiveable Curse! *keeps fingers crossed*) And then what about the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone, discovered by Dumbledore's friend and said to make its owner immortal? Has it really been destroyed? Since it was his friend who discovered it, presumably, Dumbledore would know the formula to make another. (And where is Nicolas Flamel anyway; could he be hiding out in Animagus form, disguised as Fawkes?) Thus there are many ways in which Dumbledore could return.
House Elves and dragons: The House Elf subplot may have seemed like a pointless distraction in Book 4, but I believe these seemingly defenseless, subservient creatures are far more powerful than we are led to believe and will rise up to play an important role in defeating Voldemort. At the end of Book 2, we get a surprising glimpse (not depicted in the film) as to what House Elves are capable of when Dobby is finally freed from his servitude: He protects Harry by zapping Lucius Malfoy backwards into a wall without the use of an incantation or a wand; Malfoy is a very powerful wizard himself, yet he doesn't dare strike back. Dobby also repeatedly Apparates and Disapparates, an advanced wizarding skill. I also predict Norbert will reappear in a similar capacity.
R.A.B.: The "R.A.B." of the locket Horcrux is obviously (too obviously perhaps??) Regulus Black, who is still alive and will make an appearance in Book 7, becoming a sort of substitute Sirius to Harry when it's realized that he too has been given a bad rap and has, in fact, been hiding out all this time waiting to come back and fight against Voldemort. It seems obvious that it's Regulus because the locket fits the casual description of the one found in a drawer and discarded during the cleaning at Grimmauld Place (and most likely surreptitiously rescued by Kreacher) in Book 5.
Beyond the Veil: Exactly what was behind the Veil, whither Sirius disappeared, remains a mystery. In fact, we never actually saw Sirius dead, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if he reappears in Book 7 (perhaps contacting Harry through the mirror he gave him for that purpose but never used)--or if his own brother Regulus helps to find him. (What are "deathly hallows" anyway? Could they be what lurks on the other side of the Veil?)
The Last Horcrux: The seventh Horcrux, into which Voldemort placed the last piece of his soul, is Harry's scar; this is why it hurts whenever Voldemort is around, why Harry sometimes sees through Voldemort's eyes, why he can speak Parseltongue, and why the Sorting Hat almost put him into Slytherin house. (The significance of his scar is further hinted at by JKR's tantalizing revelation that the last word in Book 7 is "scar.") Through it, Harry is bound to Voldemort because a piece of Voldemort's soul resides inside him. This presents a serious problem in that Harry cannot destroy the last Horcrux, thereby killing Voldemort, without killing himself. Thus, either Harry must commit suicide or a small part of Voldemort must be allowed to live on within him (and he must learn to keep it under control--a metaphor for the struggle between "what is right and what is easy" that goes on within most of us all the time). This seems a better solution than killing Voldemort outright. In fact, while Harry believes that he must kill Voldemort, the prophecy only stated that the chosen one would have the power to "vanquish" the dark lord--and that neither could "live" while the other was still alive (yet they are both physically alive to some degree, so perhaps "live" is meant in a more abstract sense).
It's been stated from Book 1 that it was his mother's love that saved Harry's life, and JKR has emphasized the importance of Love to the story in interviews; furthermore, it's revealed that Voldemort is the way he is because he was never loved. Thus, while it sounds corny, to me the answer seems to be that Harry, who's been growing increasingly bitter as the books progress, must learn to love Voldemort, thus transforming them both and infusing some goodness into what's left of Voldemort--or, rather, Tom. (Harry must also be reconciled to Snape as they both overcome their long-misguided notions of each other. And in his "vanquishing" of Voldemort, the curse, placed on it by Voldemort in revenge for his not getting the job when he applied for it, will be lifted from the DADA position.)
(Since I first wrote this essay, the brilliant Keith Olbermann has put forth an even cleverer solution to Harry's dilemma, and now I'll be disappointed if JKR came up with anything less: Snape informs Harry that it's not necessary to kill himself in order to destroy the last Horcrux; he must simply renounce magic and the wizarding world. This would involve sacrifice on his part and also, as JKR has told us would be the case, effectively preclude any sequels involving Harry--as a wizard at least. The whole wizarding world would be but a memory to him--as much a fantasy to him as it is to us. But then, it'd be kind of cool if he returned to Hogwarts as the new DADA teacher after the curse has been lifted!)
Harry's Ancestry: Then there's that mysterious resemblance between the young Tom Riddle and Harry that hasn't been explained yet . . . We don't know much about his father's ancestry except that he's a pureblood, as was Tom's mother. So my lingering questions are: Are James and Voldemort (and therefore Harry) related? And is it mere coincidence that Snape also has black hair--and the same initials as Salazar Slytherin? (It's become apparent that nothing J. K. Rowling puts in the books, no matter how trivial it seems, is ever trivial!)
So what what do you think? Please add your comments (in 4000 characters or less, or multiple comments of said length--LiveJournal's rule, not mine), or direct me to your own Harry Potter blog!
(cross-posted to my MySpace blog)
I actually drafted this up back in February, intending to post it on my MySpace blog, but (like most things I plan to do) never got around to it. But now that everyone including TV news commentator Keith Olbermann is coming out with their own predictions of how the Harry Potter series is going to end, I realized the time to place my wager is now or never. So here are my theories about what's been going on and what's going to happen in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (due out on July 21):
Warning: Spoilers for Books 1-6 (the rest is pure speculation, with a bit of wishful thinking thrown in)
Peter Pettigrew: Though Peter is a despicable character in many ways, I believe he will--in fact, he must make amends to Harry, thereby playing a significant role in the defeat of Voldemort. For one thing, he owes a debt to Harry for sparing his life when Professor Lupin and Sirius Black were about to kill him in the Shrieking Shack (and, as Dumbledore informed Harry, a Life Debt is not something to be taken lightly; the day may come when he is glad he spared Pettigrew).
As Voldemort's closest confidant, Peter is in a unique (albeit perilous) position to assist in his downfall. Also, rather than replacing Peter's sacrificed hand with a human one, Voldemort gave him a flexible silver one, making me wonder what special powers it confers. (The only power that's been revealed so far is the ability to completely pulverize a twig between his fingers. That in itself could come in rather, er, "handy"--sorry.)
I know I'm somewhat biased, as both a fan of the actor, Timothy Spall, who plays him, and someone who loves small animals, especially rodents, and hence was always partial to Scabbers, so I'm among the small minority who see Peter as simply a cowardly, weak-willed and somewhat marginalized person; his nickname says as much: All the Marauders have noble-sounding names except for him; "Wormtail" sounds more like an insult--and, as we've seen by their treatment of Snape, the Marauders could be pretty cruel, including James. (Peter is clearly self-destructive as well, as evidenced by his readiness to cut off parts of his own body, first his finger and then his whole hand. In fact, his motivations are well-expressed in the fanfic "Tears of a Rat.") As a result, Peter is easily led by anybody who shows him the slightest bit of kindness or offers him the promise of bettering himself. (And, in order to avoid the Dementors in Book 3, once he escaped from Harry and friends, he had no place left to go but back to Voldemort. Even Voldemort knows his loyalty stems from fear: "You are regretting you ever returned to me," the great Legilimens tells his servant. "Your devotion is nothing more than cowardice. You would not be here if you had anywhere else to go.")
It isn't portrayed this way in the fourth film (in fact, Tim Spall isn't given the opportunity to do much with the character at all, which I think is a crime because he played the him so perfectly in Prisoner of Azkaban), but in Book 4, Peter is depicted as frightened of Voldemort, not so eager to do his master's bidding, and even pleads for Harry's life when Voldemort first reveals his plan to kill him. (He also simpers and cowers and screams in agony in the book when forced to cut off his own hand, yet in the movie, he does it with absurd casualness, with one quick slice and nary a drop of blood, as if his arm were made of clay and he were chopping up ingredients for a stew!)
Furthermore, Harry's parents made Peter their Secret Keeper; they wouldn't have made this choice lightly or been easily fooled, so Peter must have had some redeeming qualities. I believe he was seduced by the "dark side" and, before he realized his mistake, found himself in Voldemort's nearly unbreakable thrall. (He also spent twelve peaceful years as the Weasleys' beloved pet rat and would have been content to stay that way if it weren't for Crookshanks.)
Snape: Snape is not loyal to Voldemort. Though he once joined the Death Eaters (as another marginalized youth, looking for a place to fit in), he bravely renounced that decision and came to Dumbledore for protection. In return, he took an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry, even though he despises Harry's father James for the way he and the Marauders tormented him throughout their years at Hogwarts. In fact, during Harry's detentions in Book 5 and again at the end of Book 6, when he snaps "Your father would never attack me unless it was four on one," Snape repeatedly tries to get Harry to acknowledge how the father he never knew yet idolizes treated him, yet Harry never catches on to the fact that Snape, much as he dislikes the boy--and is severely lacking in social skills--has been going out of his way to help him.
Yet, Snape is not only bound by his Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry (and now, reluctantly, a conflicting one to protect Harry's enemy Draco), but has mixed feelings towards Harry because he was in love with Harry's mother Lily (who shared his knack for potion-making). In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with a theory I recently read, that his "Worst Memory" is not being humiliated in front of the whole school by having his dirty underwear exposed (certainly, he's been through worse experiences, including possibly witnessing his mother being abused by his father)--but rather his reflexively calling Lily a "mudblood" when she tried to come to his defense, thus destroying any chance he might have had with her. (As we now know, Snape too, like Voldemort, is not a pureblood wizard.)
This is another reason Snape is so bitter towards Harry, constantly telling him how much he reminds him of his father--the man who, in Snape's mind, not only took Lily away from him but was the chief perpetrator of the "Worst Memory" incident--at the same time looking up at him through Lily's eyes. His instinctive protection of Harry is made obvious in the fourth film when he emerges from the Shrieking Shack and automatically rushes to place himself between the children and danger--and, though she wasn't specific, JKR said in the DVD extras that she was pleased with the way the filmmakers had portrayed her vision in Prisoner of Azkaban and had even unwittingly foreshadowed things that were to come in future books. By contrast, as mentioned, the films are becoming less and less faithful to the books; Snape acts completely out of character in Goblet of Fire--and, as shown in the previews, he does so once more in Order of the Phoenix--when he hits the children over the head with a book in study hall, apparently for comic effect. The only time in any of the books in which he physically harms a student is in OotP, when he loses his temper upon discovering Harry surreptitiously observing his worst memory in the Pensieve and throws him against a wall, then hurls a jar of dead cockroaches at him--but misses. Which brings up another piece of evidence that Snape is on the side of good, not evil: As Dumbledore explains, Quirrell, who was "full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort," could not touch Harry without destroying himself. Yet Snape can. As can Pettigrew (Book 4, p. 638).
Further, I firmly believe he killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's own orders (and probably took an Unbreakable Vow to do so, before Dumbledore left on his final mission, much as Harry was forced to promise to make him keep drinking the mysterious potion no matter what the result). He did so in order to prevent Draco Malfoy from uttering the Unforgiveable Curse himself and following in his father's footsteps. (Poor Snape, with so many Vows to fulfill all at once!) When Dumbledore begs him, "Severus . . . please . . ." he's actually begging him to fulfill his Vow (since Dumbledore is either already as good as dead, or wants Draco and therefore Voldemort to believe he's been killed); Snape hesitates because he truly doesn't want to keep his vow to Dumbledore any more than Harry did. (We also know from statements he's made that Dumbledore does not fear death but sees it as "the next great adventure." And he already spends most of Book 6 in a weakened state due to destroying the ring Horcrux, so he may have been dying all along and known it; once he reached that rooftop, he knew he could do no more good by remaining alive and called on Snape to end his suffering for the benefit of all.)
Soon afterwards, what he did for Draco, Snape does again for Harry, although Harry still doesn't appreciate it--repeatedly cutting Harry off before he can utter an Unforgiveable Curse, not only to protect himself but also to prevent Harry from damning himself. (This is why he gets so angry when Harry calls him a coward since he is anything but--now forced to go on playing double agent without the protection of Dumbledore, Hogwarts, and the Order.)
I also believe that Snape knew all along that Harry had his old potions book and, in fact, intended for him to have it.
And, just for fun, if Snape has an Animagus form (or if his Patronus is revealed), I predict it's either a crow or a raven, based on repeated descriptions of his slick black hair; large, hooked nose; and swirling black robes that remind me of wings. Then again, the raven being a symbol of death, I'm not so sure I want to be right on that one; I'm also not ruling out a bat (Quirrell, who's known him since their schooldays together, describes him as "swooping about like an overgrown bat") or a *shiver* spider (which would explain his residence at Spinner's End).
Who will die: J. K. Rowling has revealed that two major characters will die but that one who was slated to die actually "got a reprieve." The only character I'm willing to bet won't die is Harry himself, but I also doubt Hermione or Ron will die either. (Ginny? I sure hope not; I want her and Harry to live happily ever after.) And I'm hoping beyond hope that it isn't Snape (the most beguiling character in the whole series and the reason I keep reading)!
It seems kind of a foregone conclusion that Peter Pettigrew must die--after he satisfies his Life Debt to Harry. Because even if he thus atones (at least partially) for his betrayal, he still faces a life sentence in Azkaban for using an Unforgivable Curse--more than once--so death would actually be a reprieve for him. (I think JKR is above creating red herrings; thus, considering his having incurred a Life Debt in the third book and the fact that he continues to appear, if only briefly, up through Book 6, added to Dumbledore's statement to Harry, she is going to put the character to good use in Book 7. In fact, considering he is one of the few people who knows how to get to Godric's Hollow and was also a loyal pet to Harry's best friend for 12 years, I can imagine him being the one to lead Harry there. (Also, living with Snape, he is well placed to receive secret Occlumency lessons whilst pretending to spy on him and thereby become better armed to betray Voldemort.)
Of course, considering a war between the powers of good and evil seems imminent, I'm sure a lot of "minor" characters are ripe to be killed off, so it's difficult to guess what characters JKR considers important enough to get a mention as being the "two" to die. I can easily picture any of the "bad guys" getting whacked, including Draco's parents (making him an orphan just like his enemy Harry), Bellatrix LaStrange, and any of the other Death Eaters. As for Voldemort, that seems almost too obvious to be true (see "The Last Horcrux" below for details). And there are other "expendable" characters, such as Fleur Delacour, whose loss would be tragic but, due to their late appearance in the story, wouldn't break the hearts of too many hard-core readers.
In short, your guess is as good as mine on this one. The only thing I can say for sure is that if Snape is among the survivors, I'll be happy. (And I think JKR would be too since she has referred to him as "a gift of a character.")
Dumbledore: Dumbledore may be dead . . . but like his pet phoenix, I'm convinced he will, one way or another, "rise from the ashes" to play a role in Book 7. (It would be just too much of a coincidence to have him so closely identified with the phoenix yet not have him become one in Animagus form! Not to mention the symbolism of his burnt hand in Book 6.)
A major clue about Dumbledore's fate is given in Book 2 when he tells Harry, "I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me . . . Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it." (Another reason to suspect Snape sought asylum from Voldemort there.) There are other reasons to believe that Dumbledore will return: He himself urges Draco not to use the Unforgiveable Curse--telling him that there are ways to hide him and his mother by faking their deaths (Book 6, pp. 591-592). This could clearly then have been done for Dumbledore as well; his offer to Draco seems like such a "dead" (sorry) giveaway that that's exactly what was done for him! I mean, he was seen to fly off the rooftop and then his body was seen lying on the ground below, but I can't find any evidence that anyone actually saw him fly from the rooftop directly to the ground; thus, couldn't the body on the ground be a decoy? Also, on the rooftop Dumbledore tells Draco, "I certainly did have a drink . . . and I came back . . . after a fashion." The addition of "after a fashion" could refer not only to his having a drink but also to the words "came back." Maybe in drinking the mysterious liquid (the Draft of Living Death perhaps?), he's already dead. (And if Dumbledore's not dead, or if he was already "dead" and begging to be released from his half-state, then Snape's not really guilty of performing an Unforgiveable Curse! *keeps fingers crossed*) And then what about the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone, discovered by Dumbledore's friend and said to make its owner immortal? Has it really been destroyed? Since it was his friend who discovered it, presumably, Dumbledore would know the formula to make another. (And where is Nicolas Flamel anyway; could he be hiding out in Animagus form, disguised as Fawkes?) Thus there are many ways in which Dumbledore could return.
House Elves and dragons: The House Elf subplot may have seemed like a pointless distraction in Book 4, but I believe these seemingly defenseless, subservient creatures are far more powerful than we are led to believe and will rise up to play an important role in defeating Voldemort. At the end of Book 2, we get a surprising glimpse (not depicted in the film) as to what House Elves are capable of when Dobby is finally freed from his servitude: He protects Harry by zapping Lucius Malfoy backwards into a wall without the use of an incantation or a wand; Malfoy is a very powerful wizard himself, yet he doesn't dare strike back. Dobby also repeatedly Apparates and Disapparates, an advanced wizarding skill. I also predict Norbert will reappear in a similar capacity.
R.A.B.: The "R.A.B." of the locket Horcrux is obviously (too obviously perhaps??) Regulus Black, who is still alive and will make an appearance in Book 7, becoming a sort of substitute Sirius to Harry when it's realized that he too has been given a bad rap and has, in fact, been hiding out all this time waiting to come back and fight against Voldemort. It seems obvious that it's Regulus because the locket fits the casual description of the one found in a drawer and discarded during the cleaning at Grimmauld Place (and most likely surreptitiously rescued by Kreacher) in Book 5.
Beyond the Veil: Exactly what was behind the Veil, whither Sirius disappeared, remains a mystery. In fact, we never actually saw Sirius dead, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if he reappears in Book 7 (perhaps contacting Harry through the mirror he gave him for that purpose but never used)--or if his own brother Regulus helps to find him. (What are "deathly hallows" anyway? Could they be what lurks on the other side of the Veil?)
The Last Horcrux: The seventh Horcrux, into which Voldemort placed the last piece of his soul, is Harry's scar; this is why it hurts whenever Voldemort is around, why Harry sometimes sees through Voldemort's eyes, why he can speak Parseltongue, and why the Sorting Hat almost put him into Slytherin house. (The significance of his scar is further hinted at by JKR's tantalizing revelation that the last word in Book 7 is "scar.") Through it, Harry is bound to Voldemort because a piece of Voldemort's soul resides inside him. This presents a serious problem in that Harry cannot destroy the last Horcrux, thereby killing Voldemort, without killing himself. Thus, either Harry must commit suicide or a small part of Voldemort must be allowed to live on within him (and he must learn to keep it under control--a metaphor for the struggle between "what is right and what is easy" that goes on within most of us all the time). This seems a better solution than killing Voldemort outright. In fact, while Harry believes that he must kill Voldemort, the prophecy only stated that the chosen one would have the power to "vanquish" the dark lord--and that neither could "live" while the other was still alive (yet they are both physically alive to some degree, so perhaps "live" is meant in a more abstract sense).
It's been stated from Book 1 that it was his mother's love that saved Harry's life, and JKR has emphasized the importance of Love to the story in interviews; furthermore, it's revealed that Voldemort is the way he is because he was never loved. Thus, while it sounds corny, to me the answer seems to be that Harry, who's been growing increasingly bitter as the books progress, must learn to love Voldemort, thus transforming them both and infusing some goodness into what's left of Voldemort--or, rather, Tom. (Harry must also be reconciled to Snape as they both overcome their long-misguided notions of each other. And in his "vanquishing" of Voldemort, the curse, placed on it by Voldemort in revenge for his not getting the job when he applied for it, will be lifted from the DADA position.)
(Since I first wrote this essay, the brilliant Keith Olbermann has put forth an even cleverer solution to Harry's dilemma, and now I'll be disappointed if JKR came up with anything less: Snape informs Harry that it's not necessary to kill himself in order to destroy the last Horcrux; he must simply renounce magic and the wizarding world. This would involve sacrifice on his part and also, as JKR has told us would be the case, effectively preclude any sequels involving Harry--as a wizard at least. The whole wizarding world would be but a memory to him--as much a fantasy to him as it is to us. But then, it'd be kind of cool if he returned to Hogwarts as the new DADA teacher after the curse has been lifted!)
Harry's Ancestry: Then there's that mysterious resemblance between the young Tom Riddle and Harry that hasn't been explained yet . . . We don't know much about his father's ancestry except that he's a pureblood, as was Tom's mother. So my lingering questions are: Are James and Voldemort (and therefore Harry) related? And is it mere coincidence that Snape also has black hair--and the same initials as Salazar Slytherin? (It's become apparent that nothing J. K. Rowling puts in the books, no matter how trivial it seems, is ever trivial!)
So what what do you think? Please add your comments (in 4000 characters or less, or multiple comments of said length--LiveJournal's rule, not mine), or direct me to your own Harry Potter blog!
(cross-posted to my MySpace blog)