Varitek
Blue Crack Addict
Angela Harlem said:
I need to state outright here that every prediction or guess I have ever made on Harry Potter has been blatantly and wildly wrong when the new book has subsequently come out
oh but that is the fun part! (see below!)
It is hard to figure out where it will take place. Like you I can't imagine it open or closed. My money is on (really does anybody else think someone could make some bucks with a betonharrypotter.com site? Damn US gambling laws!) the school officially being shut but people like McGonnagall will work to keep it open as some sort of semi-safe haven that can't quite function as a school. Maybe many adult wizards will move their families into the school grounds and band together to defend it, or a similar thing with the Ministry headquarters.
I was really disapointed at the end of book 6 to realize that it was the last book in which I would be able to experience the Hogwarts magic. One of the things I've always loved most about the books is all the semi-superfluous, fun little bits about class and the commons and other not-so-plot-advancing scenes, and I have criticized book 6 for having less of even though in interviews JK seems to think it's a good thing she's cut down on it. So I was really sad to see that book 7 would probably have none of that, Dumbledore or not. But. It will be very exciting to get to know other wizarding world locations, including (hopefully) Godric's Hollow. I bet there are other towns like Hogsmeade. Check this out: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/atlas.html for a full index of known locations. (That site is AMAZING.)
I'm sure the book will be set over the year, I can't imagine any reason to deviate from that besides an epilogue (like the prologue-type 11-years-previously bit in book 1).
All the children who read Harry Potter might hate me but I actually wouldn't be too heartbroken to see Hagrid go. He is probably the only major or semi-major character on the good side that I wouldn't shed a tear for (ok, I probably will). His bumbling ways have always been irritating to me, not endearing. I would love to see Draco die, early in the book, just so that blond guy can't be in most of the 7th movie. Not that I watch the movies anymore.
Back to Snape - what you said about the constant theme of good and evil running through the books. Harry Potter has always been black and white on good and evil. There is a rainbow of grey when it comes to the right course of action, but it's more of a Star Wars than an (showing my elementary/middle school geekiness here) Animorphs when it comes to good and evil: it is clear that there is only good and evil, that there is very little in the space between. Sure the Minister ignored the fact that Voldemort was rising, the Giants and others have been exploited and therefore we must judge them with different set of standards if they choose the dark side. But there is clearly the Dumbledore side and the dark side, the Harry vs the Voldemort. That's where Snape comes in. If he is indeed playing both sides for solely his own advantage, instead of working for one and skying against the other, then he is the only one in the middle, the only major character who is not acting on principle when with the good side, or loyalty/fear (and yes, therefore self interest) when with the dark side. I don't really know where I'm going with this, other than that it's a nice bit of complexity that was maybe missing from the novels.
Snape working only for himself would explain, too, why he tries to help Harry despite killing Dumbledore, why he tries to strengthen both sides. He must hedge his bets, and he must try to make sure that no one person gets so powerful they are unchecked, because that would create the ultimate tyranny and become a threat even to him and his shrewd smoothness. So he plays Harry and Dumbledore and the Order off Voldemort, and even after killing Dumbledore might switch to try and balance that blow by striking a blow to the dark side - of course by killing Dumbeldore he'd have eliminated his excuse for his slights to the Dark Lord so maybe that's moot. Anyway this theory is getting too complicated - as complex and intricate as the plots are, and as amazing as it is that she has been weaving clues and consistencies into every book for 15 years to come to the final conclusion, the middle ground between good and evil is the one sort of complexity she's missed.
I don't mean this as a criticism, that was just some thinking out loud, so to speak, but interesting, even if none of it will ever be in the book.
)
