...or at least not entirely. But I believe when J. K. Rowling said one of the characters gets a reprieve, she was referring to the way the original last chapter was written. It seemed to me she was saying that she had originally killed off a character in that last chapter but she has made a slight change so he or she doesn't die after all — although two others will be dying. And she's entirely correct in doing so. As she said, "This is pure evil we're dealing with. It doesn't go for extras, it goes for the main characters."

As to Dumbledore's death ... I thought the same things. Either he's made it appear he's dead and he isn't OR he ordered Snape to do it as part of a plan to "prove" Snape's loyalty to Voldemort. Which, of course, explains why Snape was willing to take the unbreakable vow at the beginning of HBP.

I like to think Snape isn't a true Death Eater because if he is and he's really killed Dumbledore out of loyalty to Voldemort, that rather make Dumbledore out to be a fool for having believed in him so thoroughly since the beginning. And I really have a hard time believing Dumbledore could be that blind, given the things he's simply "known" throughout the series. I also prefer to think he isn't dead, although knowing Dumbledore, I wouldn't find it surprising for him to sacrifice himself for the wizarding community as a whole, if it meant the destruction of Voldemort.

And for killing Harry at the end of the last book. I have a very hard time believing she would do that. I know she must be tempted if for no other reason than to prevent people from hounding her afterward for more Harry Potter adventures. (And I agree with her that doing so might diminish her original idea a great deal.) But, I also think she has some consideration for her (and Harry's) fans ... especially the younger fans ... and killing Harry would be devestating to them. The kids who read these stories identify with Harry. I think even the girls who read them identify with him. Fairy tales and other such stories have always contained frightening situations, even the deaths of beloved characters, so that the children reading them can vicariously experience the greatest dangers and losses imaginable, while allowing them to learn they can survive such things and grow stronger and more confident in themselves. If she kills off the one character "who's skin they are walking around inside of" then they don't learn that valuable lesson. And I think that would diminish the value of the story she's created more than anything else she could do.

In addition and back to the first paragraph in this post, "this is pure evil we're dealing with" — and Harry represents good. The traditional Good vs Evil. She's done so much that has made this series a classic, why would she discard the classic design and allow good to die at evil's hands? What kind of statement would that make? Even if evil died as well. Yes, we can all learn that noble self-sacrifice is necessary at times, but we could learn that from Dumbledore's death. There's no need to reiterate it by killing off the protagonist. Especially not after all the poor kid has been thru already!

And there's one more minor consideration that I don't know if she'll take into account or not. She's been credited with getting children to read again. The importance of this can't be overstated, in my opinion. That is the one thing she should take the most pride in, if you ask me. Even more so than creating a new classic story. What more likely way to kill their interest in reading again than to have them spend nearly a decade following this boy's adventures only to have her kill him off in the end ... and without ever allowing him a chance for real happiness? Agh!!!

For those reasons, I'll only believe she would kill Harry when I see it for myself.