I was reading on mugglenet and Jo was talking to Dan. She was talking about Deathly Hallows and was saying that she was having a hard time with Dumbledore. This means that Dumbledore will be back in some way shape or form. What do you guys think. Is dumbledore the one who does magic late in life?

Maybe he's just like..there as a portrait.

That's possible, but why would that present problems for JKR?

Personally I don't think Dumbledore will come back to life nor do I think he will be a ghost, but maybe he found a way to leave a piece of himself behind to guide Harry or something... or maybe he had a horcrux too....

She did say that he was indeed dead. Creating a horcrux involves murdering someone, and unless dumbledore killed someone, he can't have a horcrux. I think morally, he would think it's wrong.

Maybe she's just having problems writing dialogue for him or something.

I don't really see that being a problem. It's the last book, so she doesn't have to foreshadow anything anymore.

Sometimes dialogue can just be a bitch, no matter what you want your character to say.

he had to kill before id like to point out. Dumbledore may represent purity, but how do you explain getting rid of the Dark Wizard Grindlewald? he had to be killed, thats how.

Harry is another representation of purity, but he will have to kill Voldemort, no two ways about it. but by killing, Harry supposedly tears his soul. Harry therefore has the ability to create a Horcrux. and to be honest, he's done nothing but good by killing Voldemort.

Maybe the problem is harry getting to Dumbledore's portrait...if hogwarts closes or something

Yet he continuously breaks the rules and gets rewarded for it, failing to see the purity here.

i deff think the portrait has a big part
because in the last book she mentions it and whats the point in mentioning it if it doesnt have reasoning behind it

And purity revolves around how many times someone gets into trouble, does it?

not in my mind, the fact that Harry has never been tempted to go over to the dark side, even when Voldemort has threatened death upon him if he doesn't is an example of Harry's pure heart.

Gryffidor's are courageous and brave. these mean two different things. brave is being able to stand up to anything. courageous is being pure of heart (if taken from its original meaning.) dumbledore himself states that harry is a true gryffindor, so Harry is Pure of Heart, and represents purity. all three of the trio are Pure Of Heart, and represent purity.

it doesn't necesserily revolve around it, but constantly breaking the rules and doing what you want isn't exactly a trait you'd associate with the 'good guys'

neither is using a curse that tortures the victim, but he did it. and there can be no doubting that Harry is a good guy.

So if he used a curse that tortures a victim, how can he still be pure?
he's 'the good guy' because the author likes him, good and bad are in the eye of the beholder, like in "interview with the vampire" where peolpe assume Lestat is the villian, but he's actually the hero.

Satoru, you don't understand the structure of a story. There has to be a bad guy and a good guy. Harry is the protagonist of the story and voldemort is the villain. His inner conflict makes him a good character. Jo makes him break the rules to make him identifiable with a wider range of people. If he was a goodie goodie he wouldn't be a good character because he wouldn't have flaws. Before you critique JKR anymore, who is a damn good story teller and author, read some books on story structure and character mapping.

I wasn't saying Harry's not a good guy, i'm saying he'd hardly 'pure'.

I don't see JKR as a 'dasmn good storyteller' to me she's an average children's author, her books are at child level, and I fail to understand why everyone acts like she's the lovechild of Shakespeare and the Bronte sisters. I understand comparing her to Dahl, since they're both childrens authors whos books feature ludicrously over-the-top abusive parental figures.

If Harry were pure, it wouldn't be interesting.

She has kept us curious about what will happen in book seven. She has written seven books, all which have a distinct storyline. All of them together create one of the greatest series ever. When you write a book half as good as any of them, or if you find a contemporary that can write as well as her, let me know.

Tell Squall that, he's the one who said Harry was pure in the first place.

You don't have to be an author to be able to critisise a book, if you did then there'd be no point in film, food, art etc. critics.
how do you define 'write as well' you mean, can they create boring, flat characters and use already over-used cliche?

Being pure of heart is different than being pure. What I'm saying it that you don't understand what a character has to be to forward the story. Could Harry be a better character? Yes, but if she had to develop a super rich character, she would have to write another whole book. A good novel can only tell the map of a character, or a story.