Jess' Pensieve On Half Blood Prince

So I finished Half-Blood Prince at 5 am this morning and it was amazing; definitely now my second favorite in the Harry Potter series, right after Goblet of Fire. My housemate and I had a long discussion about it and what we thought of the character revelations that occurred within the text. If you haven't read the book, GO READ IT, and if you haven't finished it yet, STOP READING THIS ENTRY NOW. You've been warned. :)

Although Dumbledore's death saddened me, I had predicted that he would the one to kick the bucket. Dumbledore and Harry have the classic master/apprentice relationship, especially in book 6, and therefore he had to die for Harry to overcome his status as an apprentice and fulfill his role as the hero. This heroic concept is along the lines of Obi-Wan/Luke, to use a stereotype, or Ogion/Ged for you lesser known but way cooler Earthsea fans. LOTR's Gandalf/Frodo doesn't really work directly, as Gandalf plays multiple roles in addition to "the master," which is arguably why Tolkien resurrected him (although it also could be argued that Tolkien just lacked the balls to kill off his most powerful character completely, but I'd never tell my housemate that xD). However, it has been said that Dumbledore's relation to the phoenix as a symbol (especially given Fawkes' role in Book 6) and his sleeping portrait in the office tower could be a door which JK could use to resurrect the former headmaster; a possibility which I think is true. Yet, part of me wants Dumbledore to stay dead, because a "Surprise! Just kidding!" resurrection could be lame as Hell.

Regardless, I thought JK Rowling did a much better job of building up to and writing the death than she did in Book 5, which still remains one of my least favorite books in the series. However, I should note that the scene in which Harry is forced to basically poison Dumbledore is a much more heartwrenching moment than the death itself - one I can't wait to see on film and will be totally pissed if they're still watering down the movies for the kiddies at that point. This stopped being a kid's book a long time ago.

My other big interest with this book is the role of Snape. Now, completely aside from the Alan Rickman shrine that used to live outside my dorm room, I really like the character of Snape and his questionable nature. However, I think the storyarc of the Harry Potter series hinges on Snape ultimately being the hero at the end (especially after the revelations about Snape's relationship with Harry's dad in book 5). In fact, the Unbreakable Vow which Snape found himself caught in early on in Book 6 almost convinced me he might go rather than Dumbledore in heroic glory. Yet JK was smarter than that, pushing Snape almost completely into the realm of the Dark Side at the last minute. That was a brilliant move, making readers convinced he had shown his true colors as evil (and making us readers who are convinced he's still a good guy doubting ourselves just a *wee* bit). Yet, did JK go too far?

Although having Snape murder Dumbledore seemingly in cold blood is the ultimate way to completely convince Harry of Snape's loyalty to Voldemort, Dumbledore was such a beloved character that it may have cast him as unforgivable, despite any lofty intentions. Even if we were to find out that Snape had no choice, that he was loyal to Dumbledore, or even, as some had suggested, that he and Dumbledore had planned the headmaster's death in advance, could we still ever really forgive the Potions professor for dealing out the final blow to a gasping old man?

Maybe. It really depends on how we read it. Snape looking out for Harry after killing Dumbledore (although it's easily missed on first reading, and is certainly overlooked by Harry in his rage) lends more credibility to his role as a good guy, as is the potential for Dumbledore to return in some form (as JK had said the books would wrap everything up, and we NEVER got the whole story on the Big D's dead hand even though he said he'd explain it to Harry a million times. Why was Rowling so obsessed with that freaking hand? I think it's a clue) even though I think a resurrection would be somewhat contrived, even if done well.

Of course, the argument has also been made that Snape cares only about Snape, and is really just dilly-dallying to see who comes out on top. I really don't buy this though. That's more of Peter Pettigrew's role, the job of a cowardly, groveling, and stupid man, none of which describes Snape. I feel that Snape is a person who's never really apologized to anyone (with exception, perhaps, to Dumbledore for inadvertently setting The Dark Lord on Harry to begin with) and as such, isn't playing both sides for favor. Think about it - despite Dumbledore's admission that "as man more clever than most, I make larger mistakes," his seemingly omniscient understanding of others makes it difficult to believe Snape could hide his true nature from the headmaster despite his talent for Occulmancy. Also, Dumbledore could have been begging Snape to kill him rather than spare him, because Dumbledore doesn't beg. Finally, Snape's refusal to permanently injure anyone else as he made his escape, and his advice to Harry to "keep your mouth shut and your mind closed," hardly sounds like the words of a man who has completely given himself up.

Also, this could have been planned from the start as a way of cementing Snape in a position of Voldemort's right hand man, and as such, the Order's number one mole. Despite what Snape may have bragged to Narcissa Malfoy, Voldemort hardly trusted him - he had Peter Pettigrew listening at his doors for goodness sake (a wimp like Peter wouldn't accrue a powerful wizard's wrath for no good reason, especially one as short-tempered as Snape) - hardly a show of faith on the Dark Lord's part, wouldn't you say? Also, if the killing was a setup, Dumbledore's petrifaction of Harry (wasn't it great how that was forshadowed in the beginning?) was perfect; it they were going to fake Dumbledore's death, they would need Harry to especially believe it was true, since he has some kind of metal connection with Voldemort. With Dumbledore gone and Snape on his side, Voldemort would feel he had free rein over the wizarding world, drawing him out and perhaps making him careless.

But perhaps that's just my X-Files conspiracy mind talking, from years of watching a show were you could never really say anyone was truly dead. Especially if they smoked Morley cigarettes. Cigarette Smoking Bastard. Ha.

ANYWAY, I can't wait for book 7. I find it slightly humorous that the Quest To Collect Horcruxes! sounds like a video game title, and JK has set the end of the Potter series to follow in the classic hero quest story style. Things I want to find out before its all over:

* Lilly Potter. Why is it so freaking important that Harry has her eyes and her wand was good at charms? What was it between her and Petunia? Some explanation, please.

* Neville. His parents were tortured to insanity by Bellatrix. It's time for this formerly bumbling kid to get his revenge. Also, why is it significant that he was almost The Chosen One?

* Sirius. He had a stupid death. He fell through a curtain. Unless you have severe stage fright that shouldn't kill you. So what was the point? Some think Harry and Voldemort will both fall through this veil and the final battle will be this metaphysical journey led by Sirius, but they might just be on shrooms.

* Snape. Please please please be good. Please please please save the day and go out in this crazy blaze of glory and Harry has to go, "Shit, I was so unfair to that guy. Sure, he led to my parents' deaths, but my dad really was a prick to him. Maybe if they'd all just gotten along he wouldn't have gone over to the dark side in the first place. Wow, I really owe him one for all those times he saved my life." That, and I think Snape used to have a thing for Lily (or now, Narcissa? Lily makes more sense though). That could explain a lot.

* Were Harry's parents Aurors? And other stuff, but I can't think of it right now.