Don't visit the blog for the next five or six days if you don't want to be spoiled for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Additionally, comments will not be moderated, e-mails will not be replied to, and the web will not be surfed. I am going into the hole.

In the meantime, here be my predictions:

Is Harry going to die?

No. I do not believe that the series we have been reading for the past six books has been the tale of a person coming to the end of his life. This, like largely any other fantasy series for young people, has been a story of how to be a moral person in a complex universe. I do firmly believe that Harry will get a "Frodo" ending - i.e. as with most heroes, he will see and do things in saving the world that will make him unable to return to a normal, happy lifestyle after whatever fates await him in DH - but I do not personally believe he will die.

I have, of course, been wrong before. I had no sooner come up with my "this is not a tale of a person coming to the end of his life" theory than I realized that, well, it kinda is. Death has shaped every single major decision and distinction that Harry has come to in these past six years. His nemesis, Voldemort (true translation TBD), fears death above all other things and seeks to overcome it, meaning that Harry's true quest should be to accept the inevitable reality of human mortality. So... yeah. I still believe paragraph a), but must admit that paragraph b) has solid foundations.

Is Hermione going to die?

Why the FUCK does everyone keep saying that???

Honestly, and these aren't just my prejudices talking: if Hermione was going to die, she would have died in Book 5. At this point I'd actually say that Hermione is the safest character in the series. If there is one Potter character that I would lay good odds on having a nice, fat "what happened to her after Hogwarts" paragraph in the final chapter of the book, it's Hermione Granger. (Future Minister for Magic.)

Well then...?

If Rowling kills a trio member (and I hold that chance at slightly less than 50/50), she's killing Ron. I'd love to think she could do away with Hagrid but I'm not that lucky. Ginny's in solid jeopardy (see above re: Frodo ending). Snape, clearly, is doomed, regardless of whatever deal he worked out with Dumbledore in advance of the murder; Malfoy should be killed (there is no redemption for what he did in Phoenix), but won't be. All of the other Weasleys are obvious fodder, and I remain firm in my belief that killing a twin (but not the other twin) is pretty hefty on the drama scale. Killing a Dursley would also have phenomenal dramatic power; McGonagall's probably all right but some of the other teachers (and former teachers: Lupin, Moody) will probably be going down. It's a war, after all. For some reason I'm pretty sure Tonks is gonna make it. And let's not forget that if "two major characters" are indeed going down, old Voldy is about as major as it gets.

Is Harry a Horcrux?

Yes, I think he is. We do not actually know what curse Voldemort performed on Harry that rebounded and formed the scar. We have always assumed it was Avada Kedavra, but it may not have been; like that drink on the Enterprise so long ago, we only know that it was green. Voldemort had just killed two people to get to Harry, providing ample soul-shredding potential. The opportunity to create a living Horcrux out of the person marked to destroy him would have been quite appealing to young master Riddle. Harry being a Horcrux explains why he dreams Voldemort's dreams, why he sees through Nagini's eyes (another Horcrux) when she attacks Mr. Weasley, and why Snape has been so damn freaked out by H-pot since day one.

But if Harry's a Horcrux, then doesn't he have to die in order to destroy Voldemort?

Who am I, Noam fucking Chomsky? Figure it out for yourself!

A few final words:

Serpentsortia. Murtlap. Millicent Bullstrode's no pixie.