Warning, many detailed spoilers ahead.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
....
Apparently like everyone else, I finished the book sometime in the wee hours of Saturday night/Sunday morning. I have to admit I wasn't terribly surprised that Dumbledore was the one to be killed. I kept hoping I was wrong but was disappointed to find out he was the one. It does make a bit of sense. If Harry's to stand on his own two feet, he does have to get out from under Dumbledore's protection.
I also wasn't surprised it was Snape who killed him. After all, Snape did take the Unbreakable Vow at the beginning of the book. If Draco failed, he was obligated to kill Dumbledore else the cost was his own life. Whether he took it as a calculated risk that his cover or his life was more important than Dumbledore's or whether he really was evil, we'll find out in book 7. I simply couldn't see Draco killing anyone, no matter how bratty he was.
And considering how noble Dumbledore was, I wouldn't have put it past him to consider that he was sacrificing himself for Harry's sake and telling Snape to kill him since it wasn't like him to plead. He kept saying that Harry's life was worth far more than his. Of course I have no idea why Dumbledore didn't do a freeze on the person coming through the door, thus allowing himself to be disarmed unless he thought there was an army coming through instead of just Draco.
Maybe Dumbledore intends to come back like Obi-Wan Kenobi? <g> "Harry, you will go to Godric's Hollow. There you will learn from R.A.B., the Wizard Master who instructed me."
Consider that Snape stopped someone from killing Harry. Would Voldemort really be all that upset if Harry was dead because of an overenthusiastic Death Eater? That's another possibility pointing to Snape's redemption. I still think he's really evil, though. Anyone besides me keep thinking "Abra Cadabra" every time someone invokes the killing curse, "Avada Kedavra"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the bad guys say that Dumbledore's greatest weakness was his trust in people's goodness? If so, the most powerful wizard in the world could conceivably be fooled by a truly evil Snape.
If JK Rowling did reveal the reason behind Dumbledore's trust in Snape to be his regret that he got James and Lily killed, it was a truly lame reason. Nobody's that stupid.
As for Snape being the Half-blood Prince, that threw me for a loop. While I suspected him near the beginning since Snape was the Potions master, the age of the book made me think otherwise. Since the book was 50 years old, I figured it had to be someone around the time of Tom Riddle. I even thought that Tom Riddle might have been the HBP since he was born of a Muggle father. Or it might have been Slughorn since he was the new Potions master who had been around at the time of Tom Riddle. I tossed that theory when it was revealed that Slughorn was a teacher 50 years ago and not a student.
Anyone have a guess as to the identity of R.A.B.? Whoever it is has to be a very powerful good wizard, though, to get through the trap. A wild guess on my part would be Slughorn since he seems to be the only one identified who knows what a Horcrux is. And he was bitterly regretful that he had told Tom Riddle what it was.
What I thought was amusing was that once again, Hogwarts couldn't keep a Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher for longer than one year. That was another reason I suspected Snape might be a bad guy. The first thing I thought when Snape was made DDA teacher was that, "uh oh, Snape's not going to be a teacher next year." LOL
As for Tank's contention that the writing style wasn't to his taste, I have to agree with him in that regard. I tried reading the Sorcerer's Stone many years ago but could never get past Chapter 2. I simply didn't care for the style, thinking it was too childish. So that book went by the wayside. It wasn't until this last December that I saw the three movies over two nights that made me even remotely interested in the series. When I got back from my European trip, I read all five books in early January this year. The plot was interesting enough to get me past the slow parts at the beginning.
Anyone know why Rowling titled the first book, "The Sorcerer's Stone," in the United States and "The Philosopher's Stone" everywhere else in the world? Seems a bit strange to have to publish different English language versions and film two different sets of scenes just for that minor difference.
Anyway, I enjoyed the book. It was very suspenseful and hard to put down. The series had definitely left the realm of children's books around the time of "The Prisoner of Azkaban" and arguably around the time of "The Chamber of Secrets." That was one scary basilisk. The series is far too dark for small kids. In the last book, I can't even think of a part that's FOR children. I won't even consider letting my kids see these until they're ten or so, and even then, with serious parental supervision.
