One idea I've secretly harbored (until now) was that Harry would survive to the end, but have to sacrifice his magical abilities and become a muggle for all intents and purposes. Apparently, I'm not alone. Keith Olbermann came to this conclusion, too, and he's a lot smarter than I am. Several others have, too. The horcrux Dumbledore destroyed in the last book, Slytherin's ring, was still a ring even after it was destroyed. It was damaged, but it was still wearable jewelry -- if a little unfashionable. Same with Tom Riddle's diary, which was destroyed in "Chamber of Secrets." Perhaps Harry, as a horcrux, could survive being "destroyed" but his magical abilities would be compromised -- and thus give us the metaphorical death/sacrifice that is typical of this genre of literature.

It's possible Harry was accidently made into a horcrux on that fateful night when his parents were killed, but the book is slim on the details of how one is made. What we do know is this: When you kill someone, it splits your soul and prevents you from dying. It makes you immortal. The piece that's been ripped off can be stored in any object -- a locket, a ring, a frying pan, an old shoe ... But how? Is murdering someone the only requirement? Must the murderer recite some kind of an incantation or swallow some kind of potion? I'm not a brain surgeon or bazillionairess author, but I think this was a deliberate omission in the storytelling to maintain the suspence. (Ya think, Sharon? Why, yes I do.)

The one detail that puts the "Harry is a Horcrux" idea in question for me is that Voldemort keeps trying to kill him, which seems to defeat the purpose of having made him one in the first place. He'd want him around and out of harm's way as long as possible, no? Presumably, Voldemort knows that the destruction of a horcrux would weaken him otherwise he wouldn't have gone to such trouble to hide and protect the ones he's already made. Granted, Voldemort's made some wildly dumb miscalculations during the whole of the series and, in point of fact, might be the stupidest villain of all time, so it wouldn't be too far off the mark to say he might have slipped up here, too. Still, I think we have to assume he's done his homework on this one since his insane quest for immortality started this whole thing in the first place.

Then there's the not-so-small issue of Dumbledore's "gleam of triumph." In the fan community, this might be one of the most oft-debated moments in the books to date (other than the borderline hysterical "Is Snape good or evil" debate that will rage on long after this book begins gathering dust on someone's shelf). This one single sentence has confounded readers of this series since the book was published, and with any luck, the seventh book will finally clear it up.

In Goblet of Fire, Harry told his Headmaster that his blood was used in the ritual to bring Voldemort back from his state of partial life. This is when Dumbledore gives "the look." He knows something, and Rowling has noted that this moment in the books is of EXTREME importance to the end of the series. (Isn't everything?)

Voldemort says that it's use was vital in giving Harry's mother's protection that Harry lo those many years ago. That protection was her love for Harry. Lily also had a soul, whole and complete. So, I'm just guessing here, but if Harry WAS a horcrux, the fact that Voldemort has his blood in him cancels the whole thing out -- in which case they both have to die, or they both live happily ever after. Is that noncommital enough for everyone?