The Dumbledore Paradox

I disagree. She has made it perfectly clear that Voldemort is the most dangerous man alive, and we see that he has the same unfaltering faith in Snape that Dumbledore does. It then becomes a question of, who really has the upper hand? Dumbledore or Voldemort?

Yes, Dumbledore has been there to hold our hand through all of this, but we've been reminded time and again that Voldemort is at least his equal. It is hardly unfair to expect him to have an ace up his sleeve. All of the assurance Dumbledore gave us about Snape, implying something that we didn't know, could very well be about the Unbreakable Oath that Snape must have taken. If this is the case, then we find out that the oath was somehow broken, it doesn't make her a bad writer - it just means she is one step ahead of us, which is where I like my writers.

Also, I hate the idea that 13-16 year olds are incapable of thinking these things through - I think you'd be surprised. Even if that were the case, though, that's no reason to expect that she wouldn't do it anyway. I've got a lot of respect for her as a writer, and part of that stems from her willingness to write in a mature manner even when telling what amounts to a children's story. Nowhere in the books does she appear to be talking down to the reader.

For Voldemort to kill Dumbledore woudn't require any sort of Diabolos ex Machina - we've known from the start that he's capable.

Not necessarily a more powerful oath - but if something as vague as "love" can win out against Voldemort's spells, perhaps something so powerful as "hate" can overcome Dumbledore's. We do have the fact that Voldemort is just as sure of Snape's loyalty as Dumbledore is.

Does she have to have hinted? Just because to us it may have seemed like something came out of nowhere, but it's possible it was floating around in her head the whole dang time.

Although I agree that's not as satisfying, I don't think it would make her a bad author. I mean, as a reader I enjoy picking up the clues, or going back to find the ones I missed, but it can be just entertaining to be blindsided.

One also has to wonder how she's going to get out of having provided Harry with a communication device (a link to Sirius) that was never utilized during the book

Yep, this is the thing that made me think that maybe Sirius wasn't really dead. Why hand it over, and then never use it? And remember, Sirius went through the door to the otherworld that no one had ever come out of...just because no one ever has, doesn't mean it can't be done. I've still got my fingers crossed, anyway.

Yeah, especially with this whole Phoenix thread running through the series. The beginning of the next book will have Dumbledore and Cyclops in a terribly unsettling makeout scene.

Dumbledore and Cyclops in a terribly unsettling makeout scene.

That would be soooo hot!

But then would Harry be like Wolverine, and go to Dumbledore to touch him inappropriately and then kill him?

Yeah, that's right, Dumbledore's patronus is a phoenix. I totally figured out what's gonna happen.

Straight from the D-Man himself, (its become like quoting yoda).

Dumbledore knew his physical condition, and begged Snape to finish him, (assumably so that he could be reborn ala Phoenix) - recall also that Avarda Cadavra spell emits a flash of green light when cast, and the person drops dead on the spot (all experiences with this spell have been this way in all the books). No flash was mentioned when Snape cast his spell against Dumbledore - instead, Dumbledore was thrown backwards off the parapet, in a response similar to what occurs when someone says "Expelliarmus" (the one that blows the wands out of someones hand - see book 3, shrieking shack scene, also in the movie) or "Stupify" (which generally blows someone backward off his/her feet).

I hadn't noticed the green flash part, but I've read comments concerning the way Dumbledore was hit by this spell. My recollection is that some blood trickled down from Dumbledore's mouth and yet, from what we're given of the history of the spell, that isn't supposed to happen. There are not supposed to be any outward physical effects from the spell.

Concerning JK Rowling's news about the 7th book - not only does she mention that two main characters are to die, she also mentions one getting a reprieve.

"The final chapter is hidden away, although it's now changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve. But I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die," she said. "A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters. Well, I do."

Could this be Dumbledore coming back? I want to believe so.

@Brian Ford:

I find it interesting that you are so concerned with clues eventually leading up to what happens and making sure that we don't get blind-sided, but that you also insist that Harry should not die based on the target audience. What kind of bush league writer would Rowling be if she let that dictate the end of the series?

First of all, we do not know that Harry is going to die. Second, whether explicit or not, the prophecy exists in the series so that there is that chance. If there was no prophecy, if there were no foreshadowing to suggest Harry's death being a possibility, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

I think you are letting your desire to have him live interfere with your objective analysis of the situation. If the author kills off Harry, yes, it is edgy, but is it edgy for that purpose or is that just an effect of the event? I think that all signs point to it being a possibility and that, if she decides that is what happens to Harry, while it will be tragic, it will not be a huge surprise. It won't have come as a blind-side to readers at all.

Some nit-picking...

Furthermore, Harry's wand has a phoenix feather in it (one of 2 wands - the other being Voldemort's) - perchance there will be something to do with the wands.

More than their wands have been made with Phoenix feathers, what special about both Harry and Voldemort's wands are that the feathers both come from the same phoenix (and that phoenix belongs to Dumbledore, Fawkes). This important plot point played out in TGOF, "Priori incantantum".

Dumbledore was taken out by Malfoy ONLY because D had just finished consuming a helluva lot of Voldemort-created poison, which significantly weakened him to the point of being unable to adequately defend himself against the little prat.

You're also missing his arm... his hand was worn away (dead, old or gone... I don't remember).

recall also that Avarda Cadavra spell emits a flash of green light when cast, and the person drops dead on the spot

"Avada Cadavra" is always a spoken spell, I am pretty sure its never been cast otherwise, whereas "Expeliarmus" is what I call an omni-cast spell, meaning it can be cast non-verbally or verbally. Not once has someone in the JKR realm cast a verbal spell, and at the same time, cast a non-verbal to cancel the verbal one.

A sound theory to follow is that (and a third option for BRIAN FORD) is that a Phoenix (in the realm of JKR) can only perish of its own will (what some would call "deep magic"). If Dumbledore is truly a human-phoenix, the Avada Cadavra curse will work different on him, probably causing great damage, but not death. As he is falling away (over the edge of the tower) he could have cast a non-verbal spell to release Harry, hence sealing the expected outcome Harry would come to (why does Harry always come to the way-wrong conclusion for ever so important parts of EVERY book?)...Dumbledore is dead. Also this would prevent said, Logic Holes or Plot Holes or thin resolutions to the plot. Dumbledore (by faking his death) got Snape to so much closer to Voldemort, simultaneously hiding that he is still alive (and hunting Voldemort) and protected his prize pupil from being the target for the time being (with the pact, never harm Harry Potter). Snape, being one of Dumbledore's most trusted teachers (as he is so important) would probably be one of two other people who know that Dumbledore can and will survive just about anything.

No one has yet asked why Snape did not just sumarily execute Harry while escaping... Even if he did have a pact with Dumbledore, killing him would have made it void... unless Dumbledore is still alive (which is my theory). Snape makes it quite obvious he could have killed Harry, I just don't see why that is glaring proof of Snape being a quasi-good guy.

I dunno, if she kills Harry I don't think she would be doing it to be edgy. With all the parallels drawn between this series and LoTR, I think it would fit. In LoTR Frodo went through such a struggle in the story that he found it impossible to continue living in the world that he saved. Tolkien didn't need to kill him off because he had the whole "sail to the west" thing to rely on.
No such mechanism exists in Rowlings universe and so if she kills him I think we'll find him in a situation where he has gone through so much that he will no longer be able to see or experience the world as he used to. He wouldn't really "fit" into it. I don't see how Rowling can expect Harry to continue on as not only "The Boy who Lived" but also the "Boy Who Vanquished Voldemort."

They've got all their life to figure out that good doesn't always win

I don't know that Harry dying equates to good losing in the way that you seem to think it does. Remember, Harry's parents sacrificed themselvse to save him in an utmost act of love. Harry's death to kill Voldemort would really be that same act, but extended to the rest of the world.
Whether or not she decided to kill Harry, she can't leave him at the end of book 7 as the same boy he was at the start. There's no possible way she can expect him to then just continue interacting with the world by the rules that exist there. As in, Harry can't just take his next exams and go on to some wizarding profession after this. Harry Potter has upset the balance of that universe and to just have him take his final exams and go into some profession (or worse, skip those and assume some lofty position like Head of a House or MInister of Magic or something) would be something we might have expected from the first HP book which was a children's tale, but something we cannot expect from the 7th book, which is young adult fiction. I have no idea about the age range of the target audience, but I'll go with the 15-16 that you've given. To say 16 year olds aren't ready for that kind of ending is incredibly naive, I think. By that time they are already reading Catcher in the Rye, Ordinary People and A Separate Peace in school. Mentally, they are ready for Harry to die, and I think Rowling really has prepared them for that eventuality in the book.

I agree that the prophecy does not predict the death of both (I read "Neither can live while the other survives." as they can't both continue living at the same time. As long as at least one is dead, the other is fine) but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Like I said, my reading of the series is that if Harry doesn't die, something else has to happen to remove him from the regular wizarding world, whether that is losing his power or deciding to rejoin the muggle world or having his memory erased or something. He can't just kill Voldemort and then be like "Oh well, time to take my N.E.W.T.s.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Neville is going to die defeating Voldemort, thus sparing Harry the title of The Boy who Defeated Voldemort. Only if someone else beats Voldemort can Harry go on to live a "normal" life. Plus, nobody would see it coming.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Neville is going to die defeating Voldemort, thus sparing Harry the title of The Boy who Defeated Voldemort.

That's interesting and, now that you mention it, very plausible. Someone from the DA getting in the final hit just as Voldemort is occupied with trying to kill Harry. I don't think she'd kill Neville though. Plucky sidekicks have a sort of immunity shield in books if they make it all the way to the end (that is, if they don't die in order to give the hero the added motivation to continue on.)

My personal theory is that both Snape and DD have something cooked up.

I think that's pretty much a necessity.

DD faking his death in some elaborate manner (and making Snape -think- he pulled one over on him) seems far more in line with the DD I've been introduced to for the past 6 books.

This is exactly my theory for what happened. Snape is evil, but Dumbledore is clever as a fox.

It is Albus Dumbledore, the man who for ten years knew exactly how to keep Harry hidden from all the wizards (and there are a lot of them) who sought retribution on Harry for nearly killing their leader.

I can see Harry and the "entourage" of good wizards battling (one dead already) and then Dumbledore appears (from the ashes) gets his revenge on Snape (by exposing his lies to Voldemort. Its more than likely that one death will be Neville (et. Prophecy, killed by Voldemort...I bet he'll save Harry) and Snape (also killed by Voldemort when he learns that Dumbledore is "still" alive) two very important characters dead, one reprieve (for Harry).

The only people to actually commit "murders" with the "Avada" have been Barty Crouch Jr, Voldemort and Wormtail, then Snape "trys"... remember he said (at the end of HBP) you have to say the curse with "malice in your heart". Maybe Snape couldn't say the curse with true malice toward Dumbledore because he was so kind to him.

recall also that Avarda Cadavra spell emits a flash of green light when cast, and the person drops dead on the spot (all experiences with this spell have been this way in all the books). No flash was mentioned when Snape cast his spell against Dumbledore - instead, Dumbledore was thrown backwards off the parapet, in a response similar to what occurs when someone says "Expelliarmus" (the one that blows the wands out of someones hand - see book 3, shrieking shack scene, also in the movie) or "Stupify" (which generally blows someone backward off his/her feet).

I'd like to point out that Snape is an expert at non-verbal spell casting. He could have used that ability to cast a different spell than the Avarda Cadavra while making it look as though he was casting the AC. If he is able to do this (cast one spell whilst pretending to cast a different one), he could have used that ability when taking Unbreakable Oaths.

I think I must have missed this article the first time around, a freakin' year ago.

Hey guys? Your geek is showing.

Please, she practically comes right out and says that she is going to off him. She said "They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters. Well I do." And also: "I've never been tempted to kill him [Harry] off before the end of book seven, because I always planned seven books and that's where I want to go"

She "knew " that there would be 7 books, so that is why he didn't die in the first 6 - otherwise how could it continue to be the "Harry Potter" series if he corked off in the first book?

I still stick with Harry & Voldy being done in mutually, maybe. Ron was probably the one who got a reprieve, though if any character should bite it, it's him. Cretin.

Harry the last horcrux? WOW, I hadn't heard this one before. It *sort of* makes sense, but Voldemort would KNOW that he made Harry into a horcrux, and throughout ALL of the books, it is glaringly obvious that Voldy will stop at nothing to KILL Harry.
Voldy would not intentionally allow one of his Horcruxes to be destroyed, it would be a decimation of part of his soul.
Examples of things that would undermine that theory include: The fact that Voldy was unaware of his mental connection with Harry - until he was tipped off (book 5); Voldemort's surprise at his inability to touch Harry - Book 1 - (and the subsequent effort to defeat this problem - book 4), etc.
We were told in book 6 that the making of a Horcrux is a difficult spell, that takes preparation and forethought. There has been no indication that a Horcrux can be installed into a living creature (and in fact if I recall, it was discussed as a dismissable notion, because there would be no guarantee of the safety of the item - at least one can creatively hide a ring or a locket or a goblet - a living creature can be killed, and thus the horcrux would be lost).

I don't even see how this can be supported. Any evidence in any of the books?

Umm doesn't TSS (TPS) make this theory impossible (Harry Being a Horcrux)?

If Voldemort did kill Harry's mother and then turn Harry into a Horcrux... why then did he attempt the "Avada Cadavra" curse on Harry. He would have been killing part of himself... bad logic guys... back to the basics.

There has been no indication that a Horcrux can be installed into a living creature

Um, don't you remember that the snake is a horcrux? That's why Voldemort is even more snakelike upon his resurrection.

@Brian: Nagini is /believed/ to be a horcrux, but that will only be known as true or false after she is killed or the horcrux is removed from her.

I do acknowledge that most folks believe she is, and concede that this would be an example of a horcrux in a living thing.

On another note, I've done some research, and there are some compelling arguments that Harry's scar might be the horcrux - something Voldy may not have discovered until #5, thus the reason he is closed off from Harry's mind all through #6.

Here, some mind twisting shiot...

In every book, so far, you read that everyone knows Harry survived the "Avada" curse, and because of this he is special. It is spoken about like so, "Harry is the Boy who lived" as if he survived the most impossible curse to survive. Its a huge deal in GOF. Perhaps... just perhaps... Voldemort didn't want to kill Harry (parents yes, baby no), he actually did want to make him a Horcrux, maybe keep him as a pupil/son and doing so (while his mother's love was protecting him) it backfired. Harry was never "attacked", all of his memories are of his parents being killed or him remembering through his connection to Voldemort what really happened. I think it could be speculated that EVERY non-muggle in the HP realm assumes Voldemort tried to kill Harry, and was stumped, when in actuality he was going to make Harry his own. The spell he cast to make Harry his own (or inbide his soul into Harry) caused the scar, the connection, the transfer of power...everything caused by the horcrux enchantment (not the Avada, like everyone "assumes"). This logical pathway makes sense because after this backfired... I dunno about you all, but after being half-dead for ten years and all because of my desire to have a pupil/progeny, that little M'F'r is gonna get it, hard. If I was an evil (almost all-powerful) wizard and my plans backfired, I'd want to clean it up quickly and quietly (eg. kill Harry).

Wrap your mind around that one, remember no one saw exactly what happened when Voldemort "tries" to kill Harry, everyone just assumes that's what happened.

Something to add-on... in their first "encounter" Voldemort (man with two faces, TPS/TSS) offers Harry the opportunity to join him, and learn from him (to be more powerful). It seems Voldemort is not as vindictive at first but comes to despise Harry more over the years. (this backs up my theory in the previous post).

Yes! I am completely with you on this one, eSantiago! I have been thinking about possibilities for the seventh book over the last couple of days, focusing mainly on Horcruxes. The conclusion that I came to is that Harry is indeed a Horcrux. This led me to think about Hallowe'en 1981... Voldemort, in my view, had never intended to kill either Lily or Harry; after killing James, Voldemort would place a piece of his soul into Harry, thus making him a Horcrux. We know that Voldemort likes to keep trophies from his major murders, so why not use the Potter baby, maybe raising him as an apprentice? Lily, however, it would seem, got in his way after Voldemort did this, angering Voldemort, who was forced to kill her. Then, rather than attempting to kill Harry, as we have been led to believe over the course of the six books, Voldemort simply went to pick Harry up. The love protection which was created by his mother's death then destroyed Voldemort's body - just as Quirrell, the man with the two faces, was unable to touch Harry in TPS. The clues are there as early as the first book, if you ask me. As has been pointed out, 'Avada Kedavra' leaves not visible marking on the body of its victim, so why should a failed spell leave a lightning bolt scar on Harry's forehead? The Horcrux-making spell must therefore have left this mark. Harry having a piece of Voldemort's soul would certainly explain the extraordinary link they have between each other, and the pains Harry experiences when Voldemort is emotional. It would also explain Voldmort's reluctance to kill Harry.

Also, if an 'Avada Kedavra' had backfired, if that is at all possible, would that even have 'killed' Voldemort? Harry didn't cast the curse, assuming that it was even cast at all, and we are told that you have to mean it when casting one of the three Unforgivable Curses. Voldemort surely did not mean to kill himself at this moment, and therefore would not have been destroyed by his own curse, right?

I'm sorry if I am just repeating a lot of what has already been said, but there are some very interesting points made here by eSantiago, whose opinion I share.

I actually hadn't thought of that but now that you mention it, it would fit with both the story and Rowling's style.

I agree that it would be an incredible cop out to have Snape be evil. I have been hoping the entire series for that not to be the case because, simply from the standpoint of a writer, that's just like "OK readers, always remember that the guy that seems evil is the evil one. No matter what." And that's lame, especially given the pains the Rowling went over the entire series to harp on the point that, though Snape seems evil, he is not. I think it would incredibly stupid if she basically said "Hey kids, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Oh wait, yeah you should."

With regards to Harry dying, I think Rowling has left it open even considering her recent interview. Fans can pore over the first six books all they want, but in the end all they will find are clues that hint at both outcomes. Although I will say that it will be harder for her to keep him alive and maintain the tone of the series... that is to not end a fantastically evolving seven book epic on a trite and campy note.

If I had known that was going to be the story 10 years ago -- I wouldn't have started reading.

That's the thing in my opinion. If she does kill him in the last book, I think that not many people in future generations are going to read her books. If she wants some longevity for these books then she would be stupid to kill him.

If Harry lives, and I hope he does, it doesn't have to be a trite, campy, happy ending. People survive horrible circumstances all the time, endure tragedies, and are marked by them. Harry's been marked by tragedy all his life--why would this be any different?

My kids have learned a lot from reading these books--how to persevere, continuing on through tragedy, etc. The effects of all of Harry's experiences are very real, regardless of their magical overtones. He's lost his parents, he's been raised by cruel people who don't love him. He's had difficulties at school, with teachers. He's had crushes on girls and been disappointed in love. He's seen adults he loves die. That's one of the things I've loved about this series--from a child's perspective, Harry reacts much the way they might. Strip away the magic and it's a story about a boy who has had to live through some serious struggles.

Um. Yes. I'm talking about this character as if he's a person.

My point is, I believe Harry will live, but it won't be easy for him to do so, and he'll lose a lot in the process. If he dies, it'll be a self-sacrifice kind of thing, but I doubt Rowling will go there.

I'm going to stop talking now.

An insightful analysis, Elicia. I like that - we spend several volumes convincing ourselves that Snape couldn't be a villain because dammit it just seems so obvious, but then he turns out to be. What a great final lesson about jumping to conclusions - spend 6 volumes learning that not everything is as it seems, then learn in a painful 7th that sometimes it is.

I really feel that her books have demonstrated only a strong respect for the reader, be it a 6 year old or a 60 year old. I trust her to finish this story her own way.

Yes.

I don't like him, but I definitely dislike him less after the 6th book.

I've always found him to be the typical bully, big talk and very little if any walk. He's probably got some issues with dad being a Death-Eater and seeing how Harry's goodness is much more resonate and true. Being evil just has hollow rewards, and I think he might have realized it when the time came. Who knows what he'll be like in 7? Maybe a new ally? We'll find out next summer.

I feel sorry for him; he's kind of pathetic. But, no...I don't like him.

OK, just making sure :)

I feel sorry for him, as he is obviously abused (look at his behaviors, his desire to fit in, the way his relationship with his dad is portrayed in books & movies, etc).

He is, apparantly, the last male in the Malfoy line, and with the ties to the Black family, certainly the last male in that bloodline, too. He has a lot riding on his shoulders in an evil, mean, nasty family, and not enough courage to stand up for himself (like Sirius did - break free and rebel).
He is so desperate for adult affection, and for an authority figure to accept him, that he willingly signs on with Voldemort to kill DD - in the hopes of winning his father;s respect & love, and if not, then that of Voldemort. Why not DD? Well, having had the "pureblood" mindset drilled into him from an early age, DD would be considered the enemy. Think about it in it's obvious terms -racism - a child raised in a racist home would not look to MLK Jr for guidance, even if he espoused the same beliefs of kindness & non-violence, simply because MLKJr was black.

I can empathise with this - the willingness to do almost *anything* to garner the affections one craves, even in the face of obvious abuse (any attention is better than no attention whenyou have no self-worth, and seek it from outside sources).

Does this mean I like him? No, I think he is a little jerk, and he should be taken from his parents and locked up somewhere for his own good - I can't rescue him, and most kids like that don't want to be.
But then I think Harry needed a good spanking and maybe even a time-out in book 5, so that would be the parent in me speaking. :-)

@Celestina - really, I thought you had a thing for Malfoy...

No wait, that was the Weasley Twins. My bad!

No fair, using your IRL knowledge against me, here!
Yes, I have a thing for the Weasley twins. I confess it. If they were real people, I would totally befriend them for nefarious purposes.
Come to think of it, a good spanking would probably straighten Draco out... *grin*

But I think the real schmuck here is Draco's Dad. I hate him way more than Voldemort. Of course, we know enough about Voldemort's past to have some sympathy, and we are not given that with Lucius. I really wonder if, in the last book, Draco is going to be the one to save Harry or perform some other emotionally significant wonder. It seems fitting.

Deflowering? Come on, a) this is Britain b) those two are good looking and charming and c) they're over 12 years old. You really think they're not gettin' all the magical booty their troublesome hearts could desire? ;)

Hell, by the last book they are adults. It's not even an issue anymore, except that it may be uncomfortable for some to know that men aren't the only ones with "twin" fantasies. *grin*

Of course, sleeping with the Weasley twins might be a disconcerting experience. One can't really expect them to keep their "gag" devices all G-rated now that they are grown up, can one?

O.K...I'll stop now. Sorry. Sort of. *grin*

Me too. So what about all the other things I want to (like write a screenplay or learn Ruby on Rails)? These books are so dang FUN!

@ Brian: It only looks like you're going to be dissapointed if she actually DOES kill off Harry, and Snape turns out to be evil. It doesn't seem particularly likely that either of those things will happen, given everthing we've been taught so far. If what happened on the tower was all part of the plan, doesn't that sort of negate your 'written herself into a pickle' argument? I mean, if Harry doesn't die (I can't imagine it) and Dumbledore wasn't fooled (like you say, it's hard to believe he could be) then all that's left are the details regarding how good wins again, and those are the details that make the ride so dang fun. Stuff like vicious books and nifflers. All the moralizing is great and all, but I just want entertainment.

And just becasue we can't imagine a way for Rowling to tie up the loose ends doesn't mean she won't. She spends ALL her time thinking about this. We on the other hand, only do our pontificating during watercooler time at newsvine.

Brian,

What I hear you saying is: "NewsNerd, get over yourself!"

I agree.

I am, by no means, accusing you of writing irrelevent and/or silly articles. I am simply pointing out how this specific article has managed garner such attention, and how out-of-place it seems in a normally serious enviroment like newsvine. I'll give you your props, though, for simming in a new direction. You should look into making a group based on:
1) Aforementioned mantra.
or
2) Harry Potter (although there won't be much to speculate about after the release of the final book).

What's really funny is that this article was published a year ago. It's probably resurfaced because of the creation of the Newsvine Hogwarts group.

As to the usual seriousness of Newsvine, well, I'll just leave that one alone.

Viki...

You make me look really stupid.

Thanks. I appear to have contradicted myself, but if you look at the date of the last comment before my first comment, it still supports my argument-regardless of the date.

I wasn't trying to make you look stupid, NewsNerd. Just pointing out some irony, that's all.

I've seen you comment about the "normally serious" environment of Newsvine in a couple of different places over the last few days, and expressing your discontent with how some use the Vine. That includes on an article of my own.

The Vine is a very big place. There's room for lots of different stuff. The great thing about it is that you are free to read the stuff that interests you and to ignore the stuff that doesn't.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a new user pop in and start telling people what they should and shouldn't be writing about.

Viki, you DIDN'T make me look stupid, you made yourself look stupid. If you would have read the rest of my comment, you would have noticed that I WAS talking about last year.
I have never told anyone what they should and shouldn't be writing about, there's something called "Freedom of Speech" to ensure that. I simply point out how certain articles seem out of place, and then defend my viewpoint against the inevitable storm of criticism.

Brian, you make a good point.
Viki, you are contradicting yourself. If NewsVine is such a big place that there is room for everyone's type of writing, then why are you reacting so harshly to my well-intended criticism?