Thursday, May 17, 2007

Potter Watch

Some observations and predictions from Galley Brother B.J.:

I'm trying to reread years 1 through 6 before year 7 comes out. I'm about half way through year 2 and I've noticed a couple of interesting things:

Everything used by Malfoy to try and kill Dumbledore in year 6 shows up in year 2. When Harry accidentally ends up in Borgin & Burkes, he hides in the vanishing cabinet (although it's not named as a vanishing cabinet and he doesn't close the door all the way). The necklace is spotted and it is mentioned that its cursed and has killed its last 19 muggle owners. The candle that only give light to its holder also shows up. I'm pretty sure those are the only items that get described during the visit. And later, when Harry is in Filch's office, Peeves breaks the Hogwarts vanishing cabinet. It is identified as such.

Interestingly enough, Year 2 takes place in either 1992 or 1993; which we know because Harry, Ron, and Hermione attend the 500th anniversary of Sir Nick's deathday. The party takes place on Halloween and the cake states that he died in October of either 1492 or 1493). I'm fairly certain this is the only time you find out exactly when the Harry Potter books take place. I think this is noteworthy because the book is copyrighted 1999. Why was this date chosen? No clue.

Finally, I notice that Deadalus Diggle comes up a lot. He's the first wizard who's full name you hear in year 1. And he shows up two other times before Harry makes it into Diagon Alley for the first time.

Some wild theories:

Mrs. Weasley dies in year 7. I've been claiming this one for a while, but now I'm willing to bet on it. Why?

* She's the only mother figure for Harry.
* Harry has already lost 2 father figures.
* She always worries about everyone else.
* And there's dramatic necessity. A Weasley is always placed in peril. (Year 1: Ron with the giant Wizard's chess set; Year 2: Ginny in the Chamber of Secrets; Year 3: Ron abducted by Sirius; Year 4: Ron at the bottom of the lake; Year 5: Mr. Weasley in the Ministry of Magic; Year 6: Ron with the poisoned mead and Bill during the battle at Hogwarts.) It's become such a common occurrence that there's no suspense left when one of them is in trouble. To make year 7 dangerous, it makes sense to put a Weasley in danger early on and then kill them--just so J.K. can let readers know that she isn't fracking around.

I go with Mrs. Weasley instead of Ron because you just can't kill Ron at the start of year 7 and I think this death needs to come early on in order to make the rest of the book feel dangerous. Everyone knows a big death is coming; most people expect it won't come until the end. Kill someone early and the stakes have been upped for everything that comes afterward.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is a scene in Book 6 where Mrs. Weasley lets Mr. Weasley in the Burrow after [I think] he prompts her to make him tell her their secret word before letting him in. It's a weird little scene that could have been included to set up something in Book 7 where Mrs. Weasley lets someone in without asking the question.

yaycoffee said...

Great theory. There is quite a lot in Potter Fandom that goes along with it. (the paralells between books 2/6, 3/5, and predictibly 1/7, with 4 being the turning point (and holding a lot of foreshadowing in and of its own right). I've also thought that Molly wasn't long for this world. I started thinking this with the Boggart scene in OotP--she sees ALL of her family (Harry included) dead, but she never fears her own death. For whatever reason, that made me think that she's going to die. It would also bookend the "Mother's Love" thing. I wouldn't be surprised if Molly dies in the act of saving her family... and also if she dies by choice--like Lily.

And, with the timeline--It's one of those 'things' that's not often mentioned in the book, but JKR has commented and alluded and approved a timeline for hp-lexicon.org that has Harry being born 31 July 1980, and him starting Hogwarts in 1991. There are several inconsistancies, of course--but the inconsistancies would be there no matter what year she actually said, once you factor in the lunar calander and all that stuff.

Dude. I'm such a geek about this stuff. Sorry I got carried away, but this was fun. :-)

gun-totin-wacko said...

Verrrry interesting. I agree one of the Weasleys goes. She would be the best choice, for all the reasons you detail. Though Percy is a strong candidate also. Just because.

Perhaps she would save Harry, and Love would be the weapon that he uses in the end...? Naah, too cliche, I think.

Here's my theory. One of the people Harry is closest to has to die- either Hermione, Neville, or a Weasley. Whoever it is goes down heroically, which could be an argument for Neville. (In any case, I see him playing a very big role, as he's grown considerably in the last 2 books)

Either Draco or Snape winds up as a Good Guy. I can see Draco dying to save Harry, perhaps even accidentally. Snape is just too obvious as a Bad Guy. Somehow there has to be closure on Harry's troubles with those two.

Kreacher probably goes too, so Harry and Ginny can move into his house with a new House-Elf (Dobby and perhaps Winky), and make babies.

I still think it's *possible* Harry could die, in which case I see Neville and Luna defeating Voldemort in the end, perhaps with help from the mysterious person that stole the Horcrux.

SO I guess my theory is that two of Harry's allies die with at least one giving his life for Harry, and Voldemort is beaten in the end.

Which isn't much of a theory in the end, is it? At any rate, I just finished reading the series again, and can't wait.

Churu Churu said...

Interesting theory - I have to admit, Mrs. Weasley death seems like a good target. Although, *sob*...

My theory is that Harry himself is a horcrux (the sign - his scar) and will kill himself, so has to destroy Voldemort and possibly to bring Dumbledore out of his 'sleep of the living dead' - also mentioned in book 1/2, cant remember where.
Dumbledore will come back to life, to continue protecting the world in Harry's absence.
Ron and Hermoine will probably have kids :P - seriously though, they along with Ginny seem like good aurors.
I feel the book-series cannot come to an end without Harry dying. Unless ofcourse, JKR wants to think again and come out with books 8-100 later on. In which case, I wont read them.

What do you think?

Anonymous said...

Harry was born July 31, 1980. Somewhere in book 5 it states Harry's parent's died in Oct. of '81. Since Harry was a year old, he would have been born in '80.