I have two likely predictions and one less likely.

Likely: In book 6, Snape and Dumbledore conspired to fake Dumbledore's death so both could go underground.

Likely: Hermione personally defeats Draco Malfoy (and even, perhaps, Lucius Malfoy).

Unlikely: J. K. Rowling is inspired by Wagner's DIE GOTTERDAMMERUNG (TWILIGHT OF THE GODS), wherein the gold is returned to the Rhinemaidens, Valhalla is destroyed, and the gods are doomed, and as a result has, upon the death of Voldemort, all magic cease. Magic powers disappear as everyone becomes a muggle, and all magical creatures, such as elves and unicorns, become sterile and can only live out their lives on earth and then disappear.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Ron and Hermione have a baby and when Voldemort comes after them, they die to protect that baby. And Harry is the godfather. So there is a new little boy or girl who takes Harry's place, and Harry becomes the "Sirius" character.

Me and my friend were talking and we figure its gonna turn out all star wars like and such. Voldemort will turn out to be Harry's father, and in the final-showdown-battle-of-magicalness Harry will scream, "you killed my father! ahhhhh!" and then Voldemort will be like, "Harry. I'm you're father." and then harry will be all like "NNNNNOOOOOOOO!" and then in a puff of multi-purple smoke, everyone dies.

We have such intelligant conversations.

Yeah--if you're THE West Leyden Rob Anderson, come on over to Table Talk and say hi. If you are, I suspect that the reason we never lasted beyond 2 or 3 bowling dates had something to do with your finding me boring, too. But inquiring minds want to know!

I already gave my odds for the story, but we've got a lot of other ideas flying in Table Talk. If you want to see them there or offer your own, we'd love to have you.

http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?13@@.773a62ab

I gave that fun fact to counter the arguments that JK Rowling offed Harry Potter in a fit of vengeance, because she had grown "tired" of him. I gave evidence to the contrary.

Cedric is already one "boy who died." Harry is the ONLY "boy who lived." So nope, he's not going to die unless it's a momentary passage.

Damon Lindelof (creator of "Lost") stole my post!

The NY Times has an article out today asking 5 people to suggest the ending to the series. And Damon says "Harry Potter must die" and that he will be known afterward as "The Boy Who Died". Which is exactly what I posted here 2 days ago.

OK, OK, I'm sure Damon thought this up all on his own. He's a pretty creative guy. But I may have to start watching "Lost" again to see if he's stealing any of my other ideas.... ;)

Oh, and I'd love to hear what anyone's grandchildren (or children) think of the idea of Harry dying!

I grew up on The Little Match Girl and Grimm's Fairy Tales and am used to the idea of people and even children dying in fairy tales and fables. It doesn't seem out of the question to me at all.

My prediction for who dies:

Harry is the last Horcrux and it gets to look like Harry is going to have to sacrifice his own life in order kill Voldemort. But Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail) owes Harry a Life Debt, so somehow a way will be figured out to transfer Voldemort's soul fragment from Harry to Pettigrew, so that when Harry kills Voldemort, thinking that in doing so he will be killing himself, Harry survives and Pettigrew dies.

It may be that Snape is the only one who knows how to do the transfer, and arranges for Voldemort to assist in the transfer so that Voldemort becomes free to kill Harry without harming himself. But all that would only come out after Harry kills Voldemort and is surprised to find himself still alive.

What a creative prediction. It ties together everythinh we have learned about Harry from the very beginning. Rowling has always been using the series as an epic heroic saga -- teaching ethics and morals to her readers. That is why young people have been so passionate about the characters in the series. Very few things have engaged their followers in the concepts of good and evil as have the Harry Potter books. Now we will just have to wait and see. I pasted Silkstone's letter onto the Salon article before I posted it off to my three grandchildren who can scarcely bear the excitement of waiting for their copies of The Deathly Hallows to arrive. I am certain it will trigger eloquent responses from each of them.

I have had a job I hated. A few. Now I'm a writer. It's a fuck of a lot better.

I am not quite sure how this devolved into a psychoanalysis of Rowling, but so be it. I really doubt she's particularly fed up with her creation that took her from the dole to being a billionaire. And she had always said there'd be seven books, now indeed there are. She even wrote those two extra slender companion volumes for charity. If she were sick of Harry, the last two or three books probably would have been about a couple hundred pages shorter. She would have churned them out faster, and been done with it all.

And these aren't books for teens. They're books for fourth graders. Rowling herself has young children, another reason I doubt she's gonna off Harry.

She's maintained a stunning amount of control over Harry, and needn't fear unauthorized sequels. Rowling managed to insist that the films have a British cast, she's sued foreign imitators (Tanya Grotter and the Golden Leech, anyone?) and even pushed deadlines back when she wasn't finished writing.

As a writer, that's a fuck of a lot better than most can ever hope for.

....that Harry Potter wakes up at the end of the last book to find it has all been a dream.

But I hardly thinks it matters what the author's writing process was. I mean who cares if Shakespeare wrote "But soft what light through yonder window breaks, it is the east - Everybody take 30 for lunch and try not to get drunk! - and Juliet is the sun."

There was a famous Victorian author - forget his name - who wrote with a stopwatch between train stations as that was his day job for the British railway system. Who cares when these books were finished or how?