text: harry potter    .....? do you think that dumbledore really died in book 6?  if no, what do you think happened? i am 50/50   dd(dumbledore) is dead-"from this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and [journey] together through the murky marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork." - albus percival wulfric brian dumbledore  i know you're thinking, "that's what we've been doing all along." but now we have a problem: our time together is growing quite short. we have only one book left, and being that it is the last, there will be nothing to predict that hasn't already happened. the reason for my long absence was my excruciatingly precise reread of book six. i analyzed in brutal detail all the various nooks and crannies, making sure all of my facts were straight before committing myself to theories that i will have to change. we, therefore, must cling to this new mission. cling to it and hope that as true potterphiles we may unravel the deepest mysteries, unlock the most hidden doors.  half-blood, full hero  the opening of season two, as i mentioned in my sneak peek is a five-part series called 'half-blood, full hero.' this series is designed to take all of the new nuggets obtained from book six and completely revamp our old theories and forge them into new, logical conclusions about book seven, all relating back, of course, to our hero: harry. our first installment concerns that of our dearly departed friend and headmaster, albus dumbledore. i submit for your entertainment and consideration (god, i've missed saying that): the death of albus dumbledore!  dumbledore is irreversibly dead  is that harsh? yes. is it true? heck yes! dumbledore is dead, folks. i refuse to go through another two years of sirius-esque "he's still alive" droning. i realize all the phoenix symbolism is there, but like sirius, dumbledore is dead and he's not coming back. i don't hate to say, 'i told you so' because when i did, certain people who shall remain nameless, cursed me (and not in a voldemort fashion) and called me delusional (not emerson - he's cool, and he's right shippers - you were quite delusional). i have no remorse whatsoever for throwing it in your face that i said pretty much from the beginning that dumbledore was going to die. i know we didn't want it to happen, but it did and, like harry, we must move on.  i categorically acknowledge his death not to chastise my readers but to prepare a point i have been stewing over. as you may recall from season one, i said that i believe sirius died for a reason and that reason was to show harry the way to kill voldemort (though i don't think he was thinking about that when he was battling bellatrix). i feel that dumbledore's death was no accident (well, obviously, as he was killed, but i mean in the larger sense).  you all have been thinking it, but i'm going to say it: i trust tfpwwnbn now more than i ever have because he killed dumbledore. do i hate him? yes. is he a slimy contemptible sewer rat? of course. was he acting under orders to kill dumbledore? yes. but whose orders? tfpwwnbn was told to kill dumbledore by dumbledore. let us revisit the argument in the forest that hagrid overheard. as usual, jkr loves to torture us with unnecessary vagueness. have you noticed how, in all of the books, when the big baddies are talking to each other, they use a lot of unnecessary vagueness and euphemism? i realize they are afraid of being overheard, but still. but i digress. the forest:  - tfpwwnbn tells dumbledore that dumbledore "takes too much for granted." - tfpwwnbn tells dumbledore that maybe he, tfpwwnbn, doesn't want to do "it" anymore.  - dumbledore tells tfpwwnbn that he agreed to do "it" so he has to do "it."  - dumbledore questions tfpwwnbn about making investigations in his house.  if you'll notice, i have ignored all references to hagrid's assumptions and merely reported what he heard and not wha