Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?

Post  Lady Arabella on Sat May 14, 2011 1:36 am

The following is material originally archived on the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum, hosted by World Crossing, which ceased operations on April 15, 2011


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Archivist's note: Some of the posters had moments of inspiration. For some of the more prescient comments, check the spoiler box below.
Spoiler:

T Vrana's posts 518, 575 (especially poignant), and 631
S.E. Jones' posts 616 and 644
haymoni's post 623
Soul Search's post 1190
Suuz Smith's post 1589 has the comment that she expects lots of Polyjuice to used in Deathly Hallows. That certainly proved true!



Last edited by Lady Arabella on Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:10 pm; edited 10 times in total
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 1 to 25

Post  Lady Arabella on Sat May 14, 2011 1:36 am


Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?

wynnleaf
Edited by Kip Carter Aug 4, 2007 6:36 am

At Radio City Music Hall, JKR told us unequivocally that Dumbledore was dead. She also said that he would not come back like Gandalf.

Many assume that those who searched for clues that Dumbledore had faked his death, were doing so because of an inability to “let go,” or “accept” his death. For many, however, Dumbledore’s death was not so much a personal disappointment or sorrow, as it was a mysterious event that was surrounded by too many odd occurrences, peculiar descriptions, and possible hints of secret plans to be just a simple death. The mystery brought out the analytical instincts of many and the resulting search for the truth behind the events in The Lighting Struck Tower uncovered not only textual clues, but examples of possible literary foreshadowing and echoes and “extra-textual” clues such as interview comments and publishing “errors.”

The sheer weight of all of these clues seems to me too overwhelming to not mean something. I find it impossible to believe that Dumbledore’s death is just as it seemed, or that there was not more going on.

This thread is to discuss the pieces of evidence that we have that first lead many of us to believe that DD faked his death, and to theorize on what those clues could mean, now that we’ve been told he is definitely dead.

Following is a partial list of the clues. For further explanation of these clues, see the "Was the Major Death in the HBP Real?" thread.

The Avada Kadavra

- The curse lifted DD up from where he had sunk down along the wall of the tower, up over the wall and then he dropped. In all other descriptions of AK victims, the person dropped where he/she stood.

The body

- DD’s eyes were closed. All other victims of the AK are described as eyes open.

- DD was described as looking like he was peacefully asleep, except for odd angles of body.

- DD’s glasses were on his face, even after a fall from the tower

- DD had blood on his mouth, even though bodies don’t bleed after dying and the AK is instantaneous

The funeral

- The body was carried to the burial place wrapped up completely.

- The body was obscured by smoke and magically encased (we are to suppose) in the tomb, but we never actually saw the body placed into or encased in the tomb.

- A phoenix, or a kind of image of a phoenix, was seen flying from or above the tomb.

DD’s intentions and actions on the tower and immediately preceding

- After drinking the Cave liquids, DD seemed to become very sleepy.

- Although supposedly weakened by the Cave liquids, DD outflew Harry in their broom trip to the Tower. DD was apparently able to dismantle the magical protections of the castle while flying to the tower, in order for them to fly there.

- Harry, on the train in HBP, thought DD could have retrieved his wand with nonverbal and wandless magic, but forgets this on the Tower. Despite moments before having the magical strength to open the protections of the castle and outfly Harry to the Tower, DD seems to have practically no strength when facing Draco.

- DD tells Draco that it is his (DD’s) mercy that counts at the moment, not Draco's.

- DD offers to hide Draco and, in the US hardcopy edition, tells Draco that they can fake his or his parent’s deaths and appears to imply that it’s been done before.

- DD asks several times for Harry to get Snape, who later appeared to have been waiting, fully dressed, in his office. Snape later ran directly to the tower, almost as though he already knew where to go to find DD and Draco.

- DD’s “Severus, please” seemed to be asking Snape to AK him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 9, 2006 8:55 am (#1 of 1629)

Introduction Post continued

A pre-arranged Plan

- Of course, some of the things above are part of this.

- In an analysis of the timeline, it appears that DD’s letter to Harry which included mention of his intented visit to Slughorn to ask him to teach at Hogwarts, was sent to Harry only a few days after the Spinners End meeting between Snape, Narcissa and Bella. This strongly implies that DD knew about the Vow and realized that Snape would not be staying after the end of the year and could therefore teach DADA. This also implies that DD may have known even then that he’d probably die by the end of the year. Since these events also took place probably no more than a week after DD was injured by the ring horcrux, DD’s injury may have played a part in that decision.

- The forest conversation heard by Hagrid may also indicate that DD was insisting that Snape follow a pre-arranged plan that included the Tower events.

Draught of Living Death

- In all other books, each spell, potion, magical item, or magical beast that gets a fair amount of print space early in the book, or toward the middle, is used later toward the end of the book, usually somewhere in the climactic parts. Draught of Living Death is a big exception. Was it in use without the reader’s knowledge?

“Extra-textual” Clues

- In the introduction to Quidditch Through the Ages, Dumbledore tells the reader that Madam Pince suggested he fake his death rather than bow to pressure to have the book published.

- JKR told us that those who “properly” dead can’t return to life.

- Up until Radio City Music Hall, JKR had not directly said that Dumbledore was dead.

- Shortly after the publication of HBP, JKR’s editor Arthur Levine said “She's writing about war and in war people die. They are not protected by their office and the esteem in which they are held. She wouldn't compromise that idea by easily bringing him back." This seemed a bit peculiar to me – why did her editor say “easily”?

Finally, here is a quote from that same second night at Radio City Music Hall where JKR said that Dumbledore was dead.

Q: Recently in an interview, you stated that 2 major characters would die. Are you including Dumbledore in that or are these 2 characters in addition to Dumbledore? (paraphrased)

JK: When faced with questions like this I remember a quote from the author Germaine Greer: ‘Every writer has to have a chip of ice in their heart….’ I think you may have just ruined my career. I really can’t answer that question as it would give away too much plot. But let me just say that you shouldn’t expect Dumbledore to do a Gandalf.

This is a very odd answer. It sounds very much like dodging the question, but since DD was AK’d in HBP, and JKR’s earlier comments about 2 additional deaths seemed in reference to the 7th book, why not just say so? Why equivocate out of this question? Why dodge the question? I thought this was quite peculiar.

So where do we go from here? There are still many peculiar things surrounding the events on the Tower. I hesitate still to say “DD’s death on the tower,” because I’m not completely sure what happened on the tower, even if DD is now dead. I’m sure I missed some of the clues and hints that we discussed in the “fake death” thread.

Anyway, I’d love to hear from others about their theories for what was going on and how all those clues fit together.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


zelmia - Aug 9, 2006 10:30 am (#2 of 1629)

You've put a great deal of thought into this, Wynnleaf. But since we already have the "Was the Major Death Real" Thread - which you yourself direct us to - shouldn't we just add our ideas over there?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 9, 2006 10:35 am (#3 of 1629)
Edited Aug 9, 2006 11:40 am

Great summary, wynnleaf. I think you have caught all the high points.

A few minor points:

The death eaters on the tower and during the chase seemed to take orders from Snape.

During the chase, Snape prevented others from harming Harry and was still trying to teach Harry.

The people that came to the funeral may be significant. Aberforth, particularly.

Trelawney was not at the funeral. Our last view of her was just before Harry went into Dumbledore's office.

Snape stuned Flitwick. He told Hermione and Luna to look to him, which kept them all out of the fight.

Dumbledore told Harry to go get his invisibility cloak, but Harry was supposed to have it with him at all times.

Dumbledore had arranged for the castle protection to be moved inside the castle, but not near the Room of Requirement.

Dumbledore never did tell Harry the story of the ring.

I might suggest that the events on the tower not only foreshadow book seven events, but also hint at past events that will be revealed, and may be important, in book seven. For example, Dumbledore's "witness protection" offer to Draco supports the Snape's mother Prince/Irma Pince idea.

Rather than the term "pre-arranged Plan," I might suggest "Dumbledore's Goal." "Plan" might imply a rigid process, whereas the reality was probably more flexible in steps to a desired outcome.

A way to start the process might be to look at what was accomplished. Killing Dumbledore should have put Snape closer to Voldemort. Even Bella can't question Snape's loyalty now.

Yet, with Dumbledore gone and the wizarding world looking for Snape, how can it help to have a spy closer to Voldemort? It looks like Snape has a different job than mere information gathering. I have two suggestions: fomenting unrest in the death eater ranks, and finding out about horcruxes.

Something was also accomplished with Draco, but I am not sure what.

I agree that this deserves a new topic. The "Major death real ..." topic should be almost done, given Radio City.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Aug 9, 2006 11:33 am (#4 of 1629)

So what are you saying?

Jo has said that Dumbledore is dead - she even suggests that we go through the grieving steps.

Are you saying, yes, he's dead, but there was more to it than that?

Or are you saying that she said he was dead, but he really isn't dead because of all these unusual circumstances?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Solitaire - Aug 9, 2006 11:41 am (#5 of 1629)
Edited Aug 9, 2006 12:43 pm

haymoni: Or are you saying that she said he was dead, but he really isn't dead because of all these unusual circumstances?

Jo's only the author. What does she know? Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  464751818 Perhaps Dumbledore has taken on a life of his own? Actually, I think people believe they are being "hoodwinked" by Jo, given a red herring to follow.

Solitaire

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Aug 9, 2006 12:27 pm (#6 of 1629)
Edited Aug 9, 2006 1:27 pm

I think wynnleaf missed the next question.

The question she is quoting I believe is the one the young boy asked. Jo's answer was misleading, but I think she just felt terrible about breaking that poor child's heart.

After that was the Rushdie question where she told us to get on with the grieving because the guy is dead.

I wasn't there though. I'm just going by what the others said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 9, 2006 1:59 pm (#7 of 1629)
Edited Aug 9, 2006 3:08 pm

Or are you saying that she said he was dead, but he really isn't dead because of all these unusual circumstances?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the unusual circumstances aren't just nothing. I'm saying that there are too many of them to chalk them all up to circumstance. I'm saying that JKR was up to something but I don't have a theory yet as to what it was.

Jo's only the author. What does she know? Perhaps Dumbledore has taken on a life of his own? Actually, I think people believe they are being "hoodwinked" by Jo, given a red herring to follow. ~ Solitaire

No, that's not what I'm saying. But I don't think we go from noticing all those unusual circumstances and then say, "oh, okay, he's dead. Now lets just forget about all that unusual stuff. It didn't mean a thing." I don't have a theory on it. In fact, I doubt if we'll be able to figure it out. But I do think JKR was doing something with all those unusual bits.

I listed all of them, including the peculiarities about DD body, etc., because although some of them may mean nothing, we don't know what is important and what isn't. But there's just too many odd things for it all to mean nothing.

As regards the quote I included. Yes, I do know about the other quotes, especially what she said to Rushdie and others. I included the rather peculiar one solely because it was peculiar. And because although she'd already answered that DD was definitely dead, she wouldn't answer that question. That's strange to me. It's just another piece of the puzzle that leads me to believe that JKR has something going on that's not a simple as it appears on the surface.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that DD is dead. I'm perfectly willing to accept that he won't do a "Gandalf." I'm not necessarily willing to accept that his death was normal. By that I don't solely mean the physical death, but also the circumstances surrounding it. I don't think the death was a cut-and-dried murder, but I also don't think the death itself was exactly what it seemed.

There have already been some theories that DD was dead, but didn't die the death we thought he did. For instance some have suggested that DD was dying throughout HBP. Or that he mostly died in the previous summer, but took something that put a "stopper on death" and was somehow existing in a half-dead state all year. I'm sure there could be other theories, perhaps equally strange. But I just don't think that JKR was being straightforward.

The fact that she wouldn't say whether or not DD's death was one of the 2 deaths which she'd already said were additional deaths that she hadn't originally planned, was really wierd. Does no one think that's wierd? Obviously, she'd planned for Snape to AK DD at the end of HBP. Something that big would have been in her plan for quite awhile. It wasn't some additional death that would cause her to have to do a small rewrite of her epilogue. So why not answer that question?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


geauxtigers - Aug 9, 2006 4:26 pm (#8 of 1629)

But there's just too many odd things for it all to mean nothing. I agree completely with this statement. I've thought this since the first read of HBP. Its weird my first thought was that he wasn't really dead. Jo has now confirmed that he is dead, gone, won't come back. But the clues didn't just disappear, they are still there.

I just can't help but think that they lead somewhere. I have no theory as to what this is either, but I just have this gut feeling something else is hidden. She is not known for being straight forward in her writing. Look at this forum for example, why do we have all these theories? She has planted the seeds for them in these books and we have done some digging and found them. Its just a large puzzle, question is, where do these puzzle pieces fit into the final book as well as the series?

I also agree that this deserves it's own thread as we know that DD is dead, so thats over. Now we need to discuss those clues that were so well placed, acciedent or on purpose we may never know, but I think they lead somewhere.

Nice job Wynnleaf, I tend to agree with everything you've said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 9, 2006 4:26 pm (#9 of 1629)

Are you saying, yes, he's dead, but there was more to it than that? -haymoni

I defniately think that there is more to what happened that night, than meets the eye. Pretty much the only reason that I've been so convinced that DD was really alive all this time is because of the clues that wynnleaf mention in the beginning. Now we know that he is dead, but knowing that doesn't make those clues go away, or mean nothing. They lead somewhere, but I don't think anyone really knows where that could be. The events were way too fishy and odd, which is what lead us to the idea that he wasn't dead. I just think now, that those clues will lead us to something big and significant.

But there's just too many odd things for it all to mean nothing. -wynnleaf

Totally agree with you there!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 9, 2006 5:14 pm (#10 of 1629)
Edited Aug 9, 2006 6:17 pm

Ok,Jo said she wouldn't be doing a Gandalf,meaning Dumbledore is really dead and didn't fake his death,but is he properly dead? Is he under the influence of DoLD,a potion we know very little about? If there is a death in the Wizarding World that isn't "proper" what does that mean?Does that mean that they are not dead enough to go through the veil or are the people behind the veil not properly dead? If Dumbledore somehow was revived in book 7 then was killed at the end,this would be why Jo didn't answer the question reguarding if Dumbledore's death is included in the two deaths she had thought would survive.Maybe she had always thought Dumbledore would live being he was under DoLD but then realizes in book 7 that she is going to have to kill him properly.

Even if it's not Dumbledore,I think something huge is going to happen in book 7 with that potion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Aug 9, 2006 5:19 pm (#11 of 1629)
Edited Aug 9, 2006 6:34 pm

I think, once again, JKR has left herself a tremendous amount of "wiggle" room. Isn't it correct that when she said "he" was definitely dead, she did not actually name "him"? Didn't she use the excuse that she didn't want to spoil it for those who had not read HBP yet? Sorry, but if you are a real Harry Potter fan and you haven't read HBP yet, then you deserve to have it spoiled for you. If you really cared one way or the other, you'd have read it already.

I will actually believe Dumbledore is dead when I hear her say, flat out...."Dumbledore is dead!" I think he probably is, but it seems she is going to great lengths to not actually say it. I totally agree there are a lot of unexplained things surrounding the events that transpired on the days proceeding, and the days following, what happened on the tower that night. We might be able to figure it out if there was only one thing, but I think there were many things that all combined to result in what we think we saw happen. Of one thing I am sure.....there is a lot more to it than what we were shown/told.

Forgive me if JKR has stated that Dumbledore (using his name!!!) is dead. I haven't had time lately to read any of her interviews. Please correct me if she has made the statement and I missed it. Perhaps I am still in a huge state of denial concerning one of my most beloved characters - **sob**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 10, 2006 6:00 am (#12 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 7:02 am

Madame Pomfrey said:

Ok,Jo said she wouldn't be doing a Gandalf,meaning Dumbledore is really dead and didn't fake his death,but is he properly dead? Is he under the influence of DoLD,a potion we know very little about? If there is a death in the Wizarding World that isn't "proper" what does that mean?Does that mean that they are not dead enough to go through the veil or are the people behind the veil not properly dead? If Dumbledore somehow was revived in book 7 then was killed at the end,this would be why Jo didn't answer the question regarding if Dumbledore's death is included in the two deaths she had thought would survive. Maybe she had always thought Dumbledore would live being he was under DoLD but then realizes in book 7 that she is going to have to kill him properly.

Madame Pomfrey, thanks so much for posting that. I've been wondering something along those lines, but in the face of certain ridicule (LOL) didn't want to post it! Very Happy (You know, if there was ever a Chekov's gun, it's Draught of Living Death.)

Why not just say that DD's death wasn't one of the two additional characters that would die in Book 7? That's just so peculiar.

But like you, I started to wonder if he was dead, but not properly dead at the end of HBP, but he would be properly dead in Book 7.

The other thing that struck me was JKR's answer on inviting characters to dinner. For some reason, at first in her answer it sounded like she thought she could only invite the ones that were "alive" now. You know, it was like she has this sense that some of her characters are now "alive," while the ones that have died are now "dead." You know, like she could contemplate inviting a "live" character (alive in 2006) to dinner, but not a currently "dead" character. It gave some credence to me of that theory that she only lists birthdays on her website for characters that are "alive" in our current time.

Anyhow, that would mean that for JKR, DD is dead now, regardless whether he died properly in HBP or Book 7.

I know that sounds weird.

Please don't think I'm thinking she'd be bringing DD back or pulling a Gandalf. That's not it. But I'm trying to reconcile all of her comments that night as well as all these strange clues in the book.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Horcrux - Aug 10, 2006 6:41 am (#13 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 7:45 am

These circumstances are strange.

When Jo said he won't do a gandalf, i suppose that there could be a loophole. Though if he is dead-"to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure"(Dumbledore 297)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 10, 2006 7:41 am (#14 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 8:43 am

Hi guys. The transcripts to that 2nd night at Radio City Music Hall came out and here is the exact quote of that wierd question and answer.

Question: In a recent interview you hinted at two main characters dying, and possibly Harry Potter, too. Was Dumbledore considered one of the main characters or will we have the chance to see him in action once again? Since he is the most powerful wizard of all time and Harry Potter is so loyal to him, how could he really be dead?

Answer by JKR: Ohhhhhhhh, (Jo puts her head in her arms and crowd cheers and applauds) I feel terrible. (crowd laughs) The British writer Graham Green once said that every writer had to have a chip of ice in their heart. Oh no (Jo says half weeping while crowd laughs) I think may just have ruined my career. (Crowd laughs) Umn, I really can't answer that question because the answer is in book seven, but you shouldn't expect Dumbledore to do a Gandalf. Let me just put it that way. I'm sorry. (Crowd awws and applauds)

Okay the important points -- beyond the later comments that DD is dead -- is that not only would she not answer the question which was, in part, is DD one of the deaths in book 7, she said that the answer is in book seven. But what about everyone that's telling some of us "conspiracy theorists" that it's so obvious that DD is dead in book 6?

See what I mean? The answer to what happened to DD is in book 7, not book 6. Not that he didn't die in book 6, the "is he really dead, was he really dead," sort of questions won't be answered until book 7. He won't do a Gandalf. He won't come back all nice and healthy and properly alive. But she wouldn't say that he wasn't one of the two additional deaths in book 7, either.

I realize lots of people want to say now that DD obviously died (properly, completely, no complications) in HBP. But if that was so, why is the answer in book 7?

Some might think that her "answer in book 7" is about who else died -- the 2 additional deaths. But she directly tied her "answer in book 7" comment right in to not seeing DD do a Gandalf. So it sounds very much like it is the answer to DD that she's talking about.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 10, 2006 8:57 am (#15 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 10:25 am

Let's start with wynnleaf's excellent summary of the "The Avada Kadavra" and "The body" in this topic's introduction (You may have to click TO TOP to see it now.)

Clearly, Snape's Avada Kadavra spell was not normal and did not produce the normal AK effects. Nor did Dumbledore's body "fall" from the tower.

Dumbledore's hand told us something was seriously wrong with the headmaster. He received the injury from the ring horcrux. Snape was just able to "save" him. But the hand did not heal; at the welcoming feast Hermione described it as "dead." By the end of the school year the hand had not changed; it was still "dead."

We learned in SS, the first potions class, that Snape could brew a potion that could "stopper death." Dumbledore died from the ring horcrux. Snape was able to "stopper" Dumbledore's death, but the hand had already died.

In SS, when Harry is being dropped on the Dursley's doorstep, we learn from McGonagall that Dumbledore is too "noble" to use dark arts. Would someone as "noble" as Dumbledore ask someone else to use the dark arts? I think not.

In HBP, we learn that killing "tarnishes" the soul. (Separate from all the horcrux stuff.) Would noble Dumbledore ask Snape to kill him, thereby tarnishing his soul. Decidely not.

Yet, the tower scene clearly shows us Snape killing Dumbledore with a (dark) Avada Kadavra curse. It can't be right. Dumbledore would not ask Snape to kill him. He might ask Snape to make it look like he killed Dumbledore, but Dumbledore would never ask Snape to kill anyone.

Back to the "The Avada Kadavra" and "The body" summaries.

Snape did not perform an Avada Kadavra curse (or, perhaps, performed a very weak one, or the Avada Kadavra has no effect on someone who is already dead.) What Snape really did was levitate Dumbledore off the tower and down to the ground. Clearly, "The Body" points show that Dumbledore did not hit the ground with the force of a free-fall from the highest tower.

Snape did this so the death eaters would not see that Dumbledore had not died as a result of the Avada Kadavra curse. Yet, Draco and the death eaters witnessed Snape killing Dumbledore and can confirm that to Voldemort. Exactly what Dumbledore wanted: Snape will become even closer to Voldemort.

Dumbledore, himself, "unstoppered" his death. Dumbledore actually died from the ring, it just didn't take effect until the tower scene.

That is what JKR is alluding to: Dumbledore died in HBP, but the manner of his dying, Snape didn't do it, won't be revealed until book seven.

-------------------------------------

As an interesting aside, even if Draco had tried to AK Dumbledore, he wouldn't have killed him; Dumbledore was already dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 10, 2006 9:15 am (#16 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 10:16 am

I agree,Wynnleaf.There are too many clues as you've listed at the beginning of this thread for Dumbledore's death to be anything but simple.Also,she has said that book 6&7 are 2 halves of one big book.

Another thing,she said we should grieve,we should be mad.Is it just me or is she telling us to be mad at Snape?How do you interpret that statement?To be mad because Dumbledore is dead or mad because Snape killed him?

Thanks for replying in a possitive way to my post above.I admit I was scared to post it for fear of certain ridicule and I'm sure I'll get dungbombs later. But,as Hagrid says"Yeah,well,yeh get wierdos in every breed."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 10, 2006 10:07 am (#17 of 1629)

Soul Search,

That's another excellent theory and, as you say, fits the point about JKR saying that Draco would never have killed DD.

I find it very difficult to think that JKR would attempt to eventually justify one of the good guys killing another good guy in such a seemingly murderous scenario. Regardless of real life instances where this might be necessary, or even some good adult fiction where this happens, I just can't see her doing this in a book series that is read by so many children.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 10, 2006 10:59 am (#18 of 1629)

I just read the transcript and the grieving comment is just that.She said that she has helped us with denial and we should move on to the next step,maybe anger.So,it doesn't seem to be Snape she's pointing at at all.Funny,the way we interpret things until we read them for ourselves. Soulsearch,I like the stoppered death theory very much.When do you think Dumbledore unstoppered his death?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 10, 2006 11:08 am (#19 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 12:26 pm

The transcript of the second night of the Radio City Music Hall event is availible. The text of the question posed by Salman and Milan Rushdie runs as follows:

Question 4: Author Salmon Rushdie introduces himself and son. JK applauds with audience and says: "I'm not sure this is fair. I think you might be better at guessing plots than most. But off you go."

Rushdie: Until the events of volume six, it was always made plain that Snape might be an unlikable fellow [JK: uh huh], but he was essentially one of the good guys [JK: uh-huh] [audience: 'yes!' and cheers]. [JK: I can see this is the question you all really want answered.] Dumbledore himself had always vouched for him [JK: yes]. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is in fact a villain and Dumbledore's killer [JK: uh-huh]. We cannot, or don't, want to believe this [JK laughs]. Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy [JK: right...], from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead, and that the death is a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape, to put Voldemort off his guard, so that when Harry and Voldemort come face-to-face [audience and JK laughs], Harry might have more allies than he or Voldemort suspects. So: is Snape good or bad? [JK laughs and audience cheers] In our opinion, everything follows from it.

Rowling: Well, some... your opinion, I would say, is right. But I see that I need to be a little more explicit. And say that Dumbledore is definitely dead. And I do know there's an entire website that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com, so I imagine they're not happy right now. But I think I need.... You need... All of you need to move through the five stages of grief [audience and JK laughs] and I'm just helping you get past denial. So, I can't remember what's next, it may be anger, so I think we should stop it here. Thank you.

The text was also transcribed here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I tend to think that the actual transcript lends credibility to the supposition that all Severus did was to stopper death and by using the killing curse all he was doing was merely counteracting his earlier spells (removing the stopper and allowing Dumbledore to die).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mattew Bates - Aug 10, 2006 11:46 am (#20 of 1629)

Soul Search, I think that's the best explanation I've seen for the "Lightning Struck Tower" scene that leaves room for Snape to be on the side of Light. Of course, I'm loathe to commit to any theories, but that one actually gives me some hope for the Hook-Nosed Bat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 10, 2006 12:24 pm (#21 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 1:27 pm

But why would Jo not answer the question on whether or not Dumbledore is one of the two deaths in book 7? Also,it has always been apparent IMO that that wasn't a real(killing)AK,so I never really thought that Snape was guilty of murder,well initially I did,but,having reveal in book 7 that Snape didn't actually kill Dumbledore wouldn't be a real shocker,would it?

Also,in the transcript she says that there are a couple of things that she didn't think noone would ever guess.I wish she would clue us in to what she was referring to so we could have a stab at it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 10, 2006 12:37 pm (#22 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 1:57 pm

Madame Pomfrey, it could be argued that revealing the true circumstances surrounding the death of Albus Dumbledore would reveal the fact that Dumbledore was already dead in the sense that an AK would only negate the effect of stopper Severus put in place. Given the the fanatical nature of Bellatrix it is possible that she would argue as the bonder that the terms of the vow were not fulfilled in the sense that you cannot kill a man who is already dead and is only continues living because the natural process of death has been suspended. As such if the truth were revealed I think Bellatrix would do everything in her power to kill both Severus and Draco.

Also, it could explain Dumbledore's comments to Severus because, Dumbledore knows very well the cruel and vindictive streak that Bellatrix possesses

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 10, 2006 12:51 pm (#23 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 1:58 pm

Ah,so you think Snape undid the stopper with the AK.Would you say that this is why the AK(action and victim) did not look like the other AK's we've seen?Soulsearch believes Dumbledore undid the stopper himself before or after the fall from the tower,I am unclear on.I do like this theory,though.

Something else I just thought of.To stopper death could be to prevent such until a convenient time.Why was this a convenient time?The Vow,a plan,both?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 10, 2006 1:10 pm (#24 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 2:34 pm

I would argue that the killing curse did not present the usual signs because Dumbledore was in fact already dead, but that process had been suspended (stoppered with the assistance of Severus), and that the killing curse and the interaction with the stopper resulted in his fall from the tower.

In terms of the Dumbledore's fall I would argue that it was the result of the killing curse interacting with the stopper that Severus had previously put into place.

Further I would assert that the the look of revulsion on the part of Severus Snape's face came from the fact that Severus knew that force of the interaction, would cause Dumbledore to fall from the tower and that the resulting fall would kill him instantly.

As to why, it was a convenient time. I have some thoughts on the subject. I would assert that Albus Dumbledore believed that he had fulfilled his mission of adequately preparing Harry to confront Voldemort and that he at last could achieve in death what he could not in life the unification of the Wizarding World against the evil of Voldemort. In effect by dying Dumbledore was transformed into the Spirit of Liberty.

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie within the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow. What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded . . . . Learned Hand The Spirit of Liberty. (1944).

Albus Dumbledore personifies and serves as metaphor in a sense for the spirit of liberty, and the freedom from the tyranny and oppression offered by Voldemort. This is illustrated by the fact that he serves as the focal point of the resistance that actively opposes Voldemort and the Death Eaters until his death. He also serves as the inspirational sage and guide that directs the efforts of the those whom he leads and others that are arrayed with him.

I would contend that perhaps Dumbledore's death had a good consequences in that it brought together diverse groups of people and above all else it inspired the genesis of an evolution in Harry and his friends that will enable them to lead the resistance to Voldemort and his minions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Magic Words - Aug 10, 2006 1:25 pm (#25 of 1629)

From the transcript, I don't think JKR was refusing to say whether Dumbledore was one of the 2 deaths in book 7. The boy asked "Was Dumbledore considered one of the main characters or will we have the chance to see him in action once again." He was assuming that if Dumbledore wasn't one of the two new deaths, that meant he was still alive. JKR hated telling him Dumbledore was dead, hence the evasive answer.

This is going back a bit, but I think we need a clarification. Gandalf didn't fake his death. He really died, but was able to come back because he wasn't really mortal, just borrowing a mortal form.


Last edited by Lady Arabella on Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:14 pm; edited 3 times in total
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 26 to 50

Post  Lady Arabella on Sat May 14, 2011 1:42 am

Madame Pomfrey - Aug 10, 2006 1:48 pm (#26 of 1629)

Thank you for explaining that,Magic Words.Someone else had said that Gandalf was never really dead which I assumed that he faked his death.I haven't seen the movie.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Horcrux - Aug 10, 2006 5:03 pm (#27 of 1629)

Yeah, the books were better, I recommend those. but another thing that is kind of bothering me is that trelawny had made a (conscious)prediction that Dumbledore was going to die (pg 543); this was something that firenze turned down if I remember correctly. Going by past patterns, one would think that she would be wrong.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 10, 2006 6:06 pm (#28 of 1629)

Yet, the tower scene clearly shows us Snape killing Dumbledore with a (dark) Avada Kadavra curse. It can't be right. Dumbledore would not ask Snape to kill him. He might ask Snape to make it look like he killed Dumbledore, but Dumbledore would never ask Snape to kill anyone. -Soul Search

I agree, Dumbledore would never ask someone to kill him. He wouldn't want to do that to anyone.

I really like your theory Soul Search. That really works for me because it helps explain some of the oddities that happened that night, while also not contridicting what Jo said. It fits in a lot of other places as well, like how Dumbledore had his own memories stored in a glass vile, whereas before he just pulled them from his head. There's some more examples, thta I can't think of right now, but this really seems to fit. I also wonder, where might Draught of Living Death fit into this picture? I can't help but feel it was in someway used that night, as there are so many references to sleep. Any ideas?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


So Sirius - Aug 10, 2006 7:25 pm (#29 of 1629)

It's really semantics. I do believe that Snape killed DD and the whole of the Wizarding world does too, regardless of whether or not the AK really worked or not, Even if the AK wasn't powerful enough, it was the blowing force that ultimately ended DD's life, causing him to fall off the tower. DD was weak to begin with, then he drank all that potion in the cave, then the AK, then the fatal fall. Did Snape kill him? Snape was a factor in his death, along with other factors, but the only one that will matter, in the end.

I do believe that DD would have asked Snape to do what he had to, in regards to saving Draco, if it came to it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 10, 2006 8:03 pm (#30 of 1629)
Edited Aug 10, 2006 9:06 pm

I really love the theory that Dumbledore was already dead, and that the death had been stoppered. It would explain why he wanted to get to Snape as soon as he got back to Hogwarts. It would, as others have pointed out, explain why the death was different than most Avadas. Snape couldn't kill him, because he was already dead, so the spell just ended the stoppered death, and let him go, sort of like the way the basilisk could not kill Nick, so he got pertrified into dark smoke.

With that theory Snape isn't killing him, you're all right; he's ending the unatural life he had been borrowing for awhile. Maybe we'll find out when Dumbledore's portrait wakes up, or if Harry starts digging around in some of Dumbledore's bottled up memories. I think the bottles in his office could have held even more pensieve thoughts than were in the basin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 11, 2006 6:03 am (#31 of 1629)
Edited Aug 11, 2006 7:21 am

A few followup comments on post #15 and the "Stoppered Death" theory.

I strongly agree, wynnleaf, that JKR would not have Snape, whom we presume to be a "good guy," kill Dumbledore, another "good guy." (Your post #17) So, if we assume Snape is on the "good" side, he couldn't have killed Dumbledore, even though it looks like he did in HBP.

Madame Pomfrey (post #18) When presenting the theory, I chose that Snape had nothing to do with the "unstoppering" so he could be free of any associated guilt. We don't know anything about a "stoppered" death or how the wizarding world would feel about someone "unstoppering" it. It could be like a mecry killing or assisted suicide in the muggle world, which are generally treated as some degree of murder. As presented, Snape is clean and can't be blamed for Dumbledore's death.

That part of the theory is actually a bit weak. There is no place in the tower scene when we can say "there, that is when Dumbledore unstoppered his death." Snape performs the Avada Kedavra right after Dumbledore says "Severus ... please ..." As such, the variation where Snape's Avada Kedavra caused the "unstoppering" might be favored.

We could also propose that the "stoppering" was running out (given the length of time since the ring, the cave potion, and all) and Dumbledore was hanging on by shear force of will. All he had to do was "let go." I rather like this alternative, since it fits with Dumbledore's appearance and actions after drinking the potion.

Nathan Zimmermann, your #22 post. You bring up an interesting question. Snape mentions Dumbledore's injury in "Spinner's End" so the ring damage and Snape's "stoppering" occurred before then. When Snape made the vow, Dumbledore was already dead. Was Snape in any danger from the vow?

Madame Pomfrey, your #23 post and "convenient time." I think we have to recall the death eaters on the tower. Just before Dumbledore's "Severus ... ," Greyback was ready to push Draco aside so he could kill Dumbledore and Alecto seemed anxious to kill him herself. Someone was going to kill Dumbledore, and soon. Dumbledore's "Severus ... ," was reminding Snape of their agreement: that Snape would "kill" Dumbledore, thereby putting him in Voldemort's favor. Snape didn't want to do this and become the second most hated wizard in the world.

virginiaelizabeth, your post #28. The Draught of Living Death only fit if Dumbledore had faked his death. I don't see a place for it since Dumbledore is really dead. The cave potion, whatever it was, doesn't seem to fit, either, which bothers me a bit.

So Sirius, your post #29. wynnleaf's points in "The Body" summary clearly show that Dumbledore's body did not "fall" from the tower, which has to be over a hundred feet. The body was not, particularly, damaged. Dumbledore was dead/unstoppered before and was not killed by the fall.

Die Zimtzicke, your post #30. You bring up a good point. Even with the "stoppered death" theory, how is Harry ever going to be convinced that Snape did not kill Dumbledore? There can't be a pensieve memory, since Dumbledore ended his life on the tower. He might have left a "this is why I trust Snape" memory, but I am not sure that would help much, since Harry would still assume Dumbledore was wrong. This will be an interesting twist in Book Seven, which may be what JKR was referring to, Madame Pomfrey.

Thanks, wynnleaf, for starting this topic. I think we are really learning some things about book seven.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 11, 2006 7:15 am (#32 of 1629)
Edited Aug 11, 2006 8:38 am

Soul Search. in light of your excellent post. I found it necessary to review the points I made about the effect of the fall in this post Nathan Zimmermann, "Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?" #24, 10 Aug 2006 2:10 pm.

Your argument demonstrates a reasonable doubt in my mind as to the fall killing or bringing about the end of Dumbledore's life. In the sense that the interaction between the killing curse and the stopper I believe diluted each other to the extent, that Dumbledore would not have been killed instantly resulting in a slower death for Dumbledore. Upon refelection the force of the interaction between the two spells propelled Dumbledore off the tower. It seems likely to me that the hovering Dumbledore did before falling to the ground was reminiscent of someone being levitated. I would assert if there was any such levitation it resulted from a nonverbal spell invoked by Snape who used the spell to gently lower Dumbledoreto the ground.

The question this raises in my mind is did Severus immediately after casting the killing curse, use a non verbal spell to slow the descent Dumbledore's body to ensure the body remained intact or out respect for Dumbledore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


So Sirius - Aug 11, 2006 7:57 am (#33 of 1629)

So Sirius, your post #29. wynnleaf's points in The Body" summary clearly show that Dumbledore's body did not "fall" from the tower, which has to be over a hundred feet. The body was not, particularly, damaged. Dumbledore was dead/unstoppered before and was not killed by the fall."

I appreciate that theory and opinion, but I read it different and feel that there were many factors that took place that night but it was Snape that caused the final blow to DD and it was the fall that ultimately took DD. That's my opinion and theory.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 11, 2006 8:03 am (#34 of 1629)
Edited Aug 11, 2006 9:07 am

When Snape made the vow, Dumbledore was already dead. Was Snape in any danger from the vow?

Even if DD was already technically dead, Snape also vowed to protect Draco. So he had to protect Draco, even on the tower, in order to fulfill the vow. Of course, I think he was always willing to protect Draco, so the vow made little difference in that regard.

Soul Search, your expansion of your theory is excellent.

I do think that Draught of Living Death remains a problem. Does everyone know what Chekov's gun is? There are several versions of the Chekov quote. Here's one, "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it." Another is "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there." From Gurlyand's Reminiscences of A. P. Chekhov.

JKR usually follows this rule. If she spends time describing a potion, spell, magical creature, magical object, etc., she has those things be used within the book. Usually in part of the climactic events. But in HBP we never saw the use of Draught of Living Death. However, if JKR followed her usual practice, it would have been used in the climax -- somewhere. Because of that, I tend to feel that it was used, we just don't yet know how or when.

There's actually several other unresolved Chekov's guns in HBP. I'd love to see them explored somewhere. 1. Being sure of identities/use of passwords -- in the booklet put out by the MOM, Arthur and Molly's password, and DD's suggestion about jam. You could possibly count Crabb and Goyle, but with 3 "guns" in the text, the Crabb and Goyle identity hoax wasn't much payoff. 2. The shield cloaks. I think there are others, but can't recall them at the moment.

Finally, I still can't understand JKR's roundabout answer to the question about whether DD is one of the two additional deaths. The odd aspect to me is that we all were told by JKR that those deaths were one's she had originally thought wouldn't happen. Characters she thought would live, but then found they had to die. The questioner asked a really excellent question, because he was (I think) trying to pry some new info out of JKR without just asking her a question that she wouldn't answer. But then she didn't answer it. She could, after all, have just said, "neither of those two characters was DD." The thing is, if one was DD, then DD didn't die properly in HBP, because those two were characters JKR had planned on living through the books. But if he wasn't one of those two, why not just say so? Peculiar

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 11, 2006 8:47 am (#35 of 1629)

Nathan Zimmermann,

My thought was that Dumbledore's body couldn't stay on the tower because a death eater might notice that it didn't look AKed. Might cause suspicions. Some death eater may have even got the idea of taking it back to Voldemort.

Your though though that Snape's respect for Dumbledore would have him lowering the body "gently," rather than a damaging free fall, is a good one.

wynnleaf,

My point with Dumbledore being already dead and the vow was the last part. We thought Snape had to kill Dumbledore because of the vow. That Dumbledore would sacrifice himself to save Draco and/or Snape. With "stoppered death" that becomes a bit muddy.

I agree that JKR subscribes to Chekov's concept. Problem is, we forumites (read nitpickers) have the wall jam packed. If JKR mentioned a daisy, we would have it on the wall. Deciding between a daisy and a gun is the problem.

That said, I agree that the Draught of Living Death belongs on the wall. I just can't reasonably fit it into the "stoppered death" theory. Maybe its time to come up hasn't arrived yet. Ideas, anyone?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 11, 2006 8:50 am (#36 of 1629)
Edited Aug 11, 2006 9:52 am

Wynnleaf and Soul Search, I agree that their are several Chekov guns that require resolution including Draught of the Living Death. I would argue that those resolutions if they come to pass, will come in book seven. J.K. Rowling asserted that she considered HBP and book seven as being akin to two halves of the same novel. I found the quote on J.K. Rowling's website

So much of what happens in book six relates to book seven that I feel almost as though they are two halves of the same novel. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Jan 9, 2007 7:15 pm (#37 of 1629)
Edited Aug 11, 2006 3:36 pm

I think Dumbledore is dead, but we'll learn more about his death in Book 7.

I think the thing we'll learn is that Dumbledore & Snape had an agreement (Vow or whatever) that if Snape was faced with the task of either killing Dumbledore or blowing his cover, that he would go ahead and kill Dumbledore.

Of course, this makes Snape the most hated man in the Wizarding World - not even Voldy had been able to kill Dumbledore - and Snape may have not wanted to go through with his task. Hence, the talk in the forest.

Dumbledore had to remind him that there was something more important than he & Snape and that Snape had to go through with what he had promised.

Book 7 will be interesting.

I just hope we haven't set ourselves up for something really big and we'll end up with a big letdown if a Crumpled-Horned Snorkack (whatever!) comes and steps on Voldy, crushing him to smithereens.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Saracene - Aug 12, 2006 2:00 am (#38 of 1629)

Regarding the Draught of Living Death: I agree that it looks strongly like Chekov's gun, but I don't think we can say at what point it's actually supposed to fire. Remember that it wasn't first brought up in HBP - therefore I don't think we can say that it had to be used within that particular book.

I'm not 100% on the stoppered death bandwagon yet, but it's definitely one of the best theories I've read that doesn't make me go "yeah, but..." like most HP theories do. Dumbledore's "he cannot kill you if you're already dead" quote that got left out of non-US edition definitely takes on a different meaning, in that light.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 12, 2006 5:34 am (#39 of 1629)

Good point Saracene. I, at first, thought the "he cannot kill you if you're already dead" statement somehow applied to the witness protection offer, but it didn't quite fit.

The statement certainly fits if Dumbledore is making an off-hand reference to his own situation, that is, being already dead. That would be some direct canon, rather than backstory hints, that Dumbledore is, indeed, dead and Snape has "stoppered" his death.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 12, 2006 8:06 pm (#40 of 1629)

The stoppered death fits so well when Dumbledore says he did go for a drink,and he came back, in a fashion. I'm paraphrasing because I haven't got a book with me. Does anyone have the exact quote handy?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Aug 12, 2006 11:54 pm (#41 of 1629)
Edited Aug 13, 2006 12:57 am

haymoni wrote, "I just hope we haven't set ourselves up for something really big and we'll end up with a big letdown if a Crumpled-Horned Snorkack (whatever!) comes and steps on Voldy, crushing him to smithereens."

Well, there goes *my* prediction! (snort)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (HBP, p.551, Cdn. edition):

" 'That's right,' said Malfoy. 'But she said you were just going for a drink, you'd be back ...'

'Well, I certainly did have a drink ... and I came back ... after a fashion,' mumbled Dumbledore."

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Solitaire - Aug 13, 2006 10:06 am (#42 of 1629)

Isn't the drink to which he is referring the stuff he drank in the cave ...?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 13, 2006 10:35 am (#43 of 1629)

Solitaire, that's correct. In fact, that sort of ties his comment to the Cave. That is, that he "came back...after a fashion" following the events of the Cave. But if he was actually dead back in the summer, that doesn't seem to mean much.

Actually, while I think Soul Search's theory can work to fit much of the evidence, I don't think we're going to learn in book 7 that DD was really dead, with a stopped death, throughout HBP. First, we have never got any detail on the "stopped death" idea. So we don't really have any idea what that means. If JKR pulls that explanation out of the hat, I'm afraid that's exactly what it will look like -- a sort of deus ex machina. Surprise explanations like that have to come from some sort of earlier explained source -- a spell, potion, etc. that we learned more about early on. Even the time-turner had more build-up. But there, we actually saw the use of the time turner when it was used to move the plot. But suppose the writing had skipped a large piece of the end of POA, and simply told us in retrospect that the explanation for Sirius' escape was that someone had a time-turner and went back and rescued him. It would have been far too out-of-the-blue to be a satisfactory explanation. Because then the time-turner would not have had enough explanation -- prior to it's use -- to seem like a satisfactory answer. We'd have felt cheated.

Also, I know that JKR is trying to address a lot of issues about death in her books. It doesn't seem like it would fit the notion of addressing the realities of death, to have a character act practically completely normal for a year while in fact being already dead.

While I think this theory is well thought out, I don't feel that it's likely to be the answer.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 13, 2006 10:35 am (#44 of 1629)

Solitaire, I believe the potion in the basin is what Dumbledore is referring to in that line of text.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 13, 2006 7:11 pm (#45 of 1629)

Well, it could be the basin he's referring to, but we certainly can't prove at this point what he was really thinking, so I'm not ruling anything out. A theory can be a theory until it's not feasible any more, and I can't say stoppered death is not feasible.

So sue me! LOL!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Aug 13, 2006 11:54 pm (#46 of 1629)

"Isn't the drink to which he is referring the stuff he drank in the cave ...? "



Exactly how I took it too.

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 14, 2006 8:58 am (#47 of 1629)

Wynnleaf, I respectfully disagree to the extent that I doubt it would negate the idea of Dumbledore having been mortally wounded or even fatally wounded in the summer. Indeed I would assert that the effects of the potion in the basin could possibly have begun the process of negating the stopper that had been put in place, a process completed by the killing curse. I would argue that Dumbledore's statement about coming back is reference to the fact that through sheer force of will Dumbledore is staving off his own impending death long enough to allow the confrontation with Draco to come to pass.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 14, 2006 9:19 am (#48 of 1629)

There is still Dumbledores favorite jam to consider.I don't think Jo would mention that without Harry having to answer that question later.I had once thought that someone would impersonate Dumbledore,but having the whole Wizarding World know that he's dead, who would impersonate a dead wizard? Also,what about the phoenix Harry saw at the funeral?If that is Dumbledore's soul,wouldn't it have left at the moment of death?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 14, 2006 9:59 am (#49 of 1629)

The phoenix could, I suppose, have been symbolic. The phoenix goes on to a new life after being burned. Dumbledore's body was burned, leaving his physical existance behind. There's a certain finality to that.

It took two tries for Harry to get Dumbledore to come around and save him from the inferi. That could be a hint that his life, however it was being sustained, was already fading.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 14, 2006 11:10 am (#50 of 1629)

I still have a big question surrounding JKR's non-answer to the question of whether or not DD was one of the 2 characters she had decided would die in Book 7. The big problem here is that she had said that she had originally planned for those 2 characters to live, but then realized while writing that they had to die. There's no way that could have included DD if he was completely dead at the end of HBP. Yet she would not answer the question of whether or not he was one of those two.

The problem with the non-answer to that question is that the question was essentially asking if DD had really died in book 6, or if he would die in book 7. Yet JKR wouldn't answer.

Add to that all the other peculiarities. And the fact that a couple of easily related "Chekov's guns," the Draught of Living Death and Dumbledore's password, were not seen to resolve in HBP.

My theory, not nearly well-thought-out yet like Soul Search's theory, is that perhaps DD did die at the end of HBP, but has not completely "properly" died. He may have had DoLD, or had his death stopped in some way, but he won't be coming back to life. On the other hand, he's not properly dead yet and his complete death won't occur until book 7.

If that was the case, it would be right for JKR to say that DD is dead, but also be unable to comment on which book he actually dies in.



Last edited by Lady Arabella on Sat May 14, 2011 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 51 to 75

Post  Lady Arabella on Sat May 14, 2011 6:28 pm



Soul Search
- Aug 14, 2006 11:48 am (#51 of 1629)

Edited Aug 14, 2006 1:34 pm

I think I have to make a revision to the "Stoppered Death" theory presented in post #15, and revised (with excellent help from others) in posts #31, #35, and #39. I have been uncomfortable with Dumbledore being "dead" from the "stoppering." wynnleaf's #43 post convinced me that the term "dead" was not quite right.

Dumbledore stated, I think more than once, that no magic can restore life to someone who is dead. So, Dumbledore was alive when he got to Snape and Snape gave him the "stopper death" potion. Calling Dumbledore "dead" from that point on is wrong. I don't know exactly the term to use, so will go with "alive."

I don't think this changes the basic theory, but may affect some of the side issues. For example, did the last part of Snape's unbreakable vow with Narcissa have any meaning? We can kick that around later, if there seems to be a purpose.

The key part of the "stoppered death" theory is that Snape had absolutely no part in Dumbledore's final, true, death. I think that still works. Dumbledore was "alive" on the tower, but fading fast. Snape's AK did not cause his death.

I also think the cave potion played a stronger role than thought previously. Die Zimtzicke, your post #40, with Laura W's help in post #41, convinced me. After pondering a bit, I think you are right. Dumbledore's use of "after a fashion" tells us the cave potion defeated the "stoppering" and that he was, again, dying. (Maybe "stoppering death" only works once.)

I still can't identify a canon hint to pinpoint exactly when Dumbledore died, but must place it just after Dumbledore says "Severus ... please ..." Snape's AK comes very quickly after, so I am assuming Snape recognized that Dumbledore had, in fact, died then and did the AK quickly so the death eaters would not notice. The death eaters had to have noticed that Dumbledore was weak and there couldn't be any hint that he had already died. Snape had to take absolute credit for Dumbledore's death.

---------------------------------------------------------------

wynnleaf, your #50 post. (After the fact, obviously.)

My read is that JKR is a very precise writer. We, if nothing else, know that. In previous interviews she has given a less than precise, perhaps even sloppy, response and we have jumped all over her.

She was tring to be very precise in her response, yet not give anything away.

I think it was simply that she knew that, while Dumbledore had died in HBP, that nature of his death, and particularly Snape's (lack) of a role in Dumbledore's death, is a major element of Book Seven.

With the response she gave, we can't accuse her of misleading us.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Die Zimtzicke, your post #30, and how Harry can find out the truth of what happened on the tower and, Nathan Zimmermann, a bit of your #22 post, "Dumbledore's 'stoppered' death couldn't be revealed."

We have a lot of canon that tells us how Harry will figure out that Snape didn't really kill Dumbledore. In fact, we have been hit over the head with it.

From #4 Privet Drive, when Harry first asks, to their last pensive session, Dumbledore repeatedly tells Harry that he will hear the full story of the ring horcrux. Yet, during all that time, Dumbledore doesn't say one word about it. Why? Well, Dumbledore wouldn't "tell" the story, he would share his memory of it with the pensive, just as he had done with all the other pensive memories.

Harry would learn the horcrux details, but also that Dumbledore had been "killed," Snape had "stoppered" his death, and that Dumbledore was living on borrowed time. It would not have been good for Harry to know this. (Let alone anyone else!)

Dumbledore never intended to "tell" Harry the story, but he did assure Harry that he would hear it. Of course, Dumbledore has left a pensive memory.

Now I speculate a bit. The pensive memory will include a discussion between Dumbledore and Snape where Dumbledore instructs Snape about using Dumbledore's death to promote Snape's position with Voldemort.

Harry will relive Dumbledore's memory, then he will fully understand what really happened on the tower. And, he will fully understand that Dumbledore trusted Snape, and that he, Harry, can as well.

Harry won't like it, but he will have to accept help from Snape.

------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I like about this theory is I was never comfortable with the idea that Dumbledore would have "planned" his death or sacrificed himself just to let Snape get closer to Voldemort. I wasn't even that comfortable with Dumbledore intentionally "letting go" up on the tower. None of that fits the Dumbledore we know. And he was too important a piece to sacrifice for little gain. (The chess game and Ron in SS.)

As it stands, Dumbledore merely died, naturally, after bravely holding on for most of the school year. Fitting for his character, I think.

---------------------------------------------------------------

(I have edited this post shamelessly. Best reread if you caught it early.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mediwitch - Aug 14, 2006 12:48 pm (#52 of 1629)

Soul Search: Calling Dumbledore "dead" from that point on is wrong. I don't know exactly the term to use, so will go with "alive."

How about "He's only mostly dead!" a la The Princess Bride?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 14, 2006 1:35 pm (#53 of 1629)
Edited Aug 14, 2006 2:39 pm

Soul Search I think the term that best describes Dumbledore's condition after the destruction of the Ring Horcrux is mortally wounded. Indeed I know of at least one case where an individual has been mortally wounded in battle and survived but, ended up dying of his wounds many years later.

I am reminded of the case of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who was wounded mortally during the Siege of Petersburg ,during the course of the American Civil War in 1864. Eventually he recovered and survived dying in 1914 at the age of eighty-five. When he was dying in 1914 the doctors treating him discovered that the wounds he suffered in 1864 had never fully healed and contributed to his death.

I agree that Dumbledore never intended to tell Harry about he received his injury or about Snape's role in stoppering the effect for the reasons you have elucidated because, such a revelation to Harry could be disastrous because, of Harry's inability to keep his mind closed and his mouth shut.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 14, 2006 2:54 pm (#54 of 1629)

Mortaly wounded sounds good to me. I think that works Nathan.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Aug 14, 2006 4:22 pm (#55 of 1629)

Why didn't he make himself a silver hand like Peter's???

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 14, 2006 6:19 pm (#56 of 1629)

Because he's Dumbledore! Plus, scars can come in handy! I don't think it'd be a veryDumbledore thing to do either. Also, the curse that got him may have prevented it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 14, 2006 8:08 pm (#57 of 1629)
Edited Aug 14, 2006 9:09 pm

If his death was stoppered, then Dumbledore himself is possibly the answer to Snape's question...what is the difference between a ghost and an inferi!

A friend of mine linked me to a great essay on this subject on a livejournal awhile back. Something way cool came up in the discussions afterwards. People there were also arguing about what Snape had actually meant when he talked of "stoppering death" in his first potions class. One of the people in the debate mentioned that they were Portuguese. Snape apparently said in that translation, "Brew Fame, Bottle Glory, Zombify." And since Rowling speaks Portuguese, lived and worked for awhile in Portugal, and had also confirmed that she assisted the translator who did the work, we all thought it was most interesting that the phrase wound up translated as "Zombify."

Is anyone here Portuguese that can take this idea further?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 15, 2006 5:58 am (#58 of 1629)

People there were also arguing about what Snape had actually meant when he talked of "stoppering death" in his first potions class. One of the people in the debate mentioned that they were Portuguese. Snape apparently said in that translation, "Brew Fame, Bottle Glory, Zombify." And since Rowling speaks Portuguese, lived and worked for awhile in Portugal, and had also confirmed that she assisted the translator who did the work, we all thought it was most interesting that the phrase wound up translated as "Zombify."

Die Zimtzicke, I just can't think of DD in HBP as a zombie, though that's an interesting insight into the Snape quote.

Aside to Nathan: wasn't Chamberlain fantastic? Talk about a professor going to war...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 15, 2006 8:15 am (#59 of 1629)

If you're talking about a zombie as simply being an animated dead person, and not going with the general Halloween, shock movie-type version of a zombie, it might make more sense. Jo often takes things from legend or myth and tweaks them to suit herself. The sorcerers's stone is one expample. In alchemy, the elixer of life and the touchstone of gold were two different things, but Jo combined them into one.

I'm just tossing it out there as something new to talk about and seeing where it lands.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 15, 2006 8:30 am (#60 of 1629)
Edited Aug 15, 2006 9:53 am

I cannot see Dumbledore being in a zombie-like state for the entirety of Half-Blood Prince, even light of her penchant for tweaking myths and legends to fit the storyline. Zombies by definition lack free will and the ability to speak.

Main Entry: zom•bie Variant(s): also zom•bi /'zäm-bE/ Function: noun Etymology: Louisiana Creole or Haitian Creole zonbi, of Bantu origin; akin to Kimbundu nzúmbe ghost 1 usually zombi a : the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body b : a will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated 2 a : a person held to resemble the so-called walking dead; especially : AUTOMATON b : a person markedly strange in appearance or behavior (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 15 August 2006)

In effect the closest thing that we, the reader,s have seen to a zombie-like figure in the Harry Potter is an inferius. I doubt that J.K. Rowling would concciously choose to have Albus Dumbledore become an inferius because, of the importance and emphasis J.K. Rowling places upon both free will and conscious choices.

Wynnleaf, in response to your aside I agree with your assessment of Colonel Chamberlain.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 15, 2006 9:04 am (#61 of 1629)
Edited Aug 15, 2006 10:36 am

Given that we have an example of "stoppered" death we can characterize the effects by reviewing Dumbledore from his injury from the ring horcrux protections to the Lightning-Struck Tower. We know a lot.

Dumbledore is mortally injured by a curse protecting the ring horcrux. He makes it to Snape before expiring. Snape administers the "stopper death" potion.

We should note that Dumbledore was still alive when the potion was administered. No magic can reverse death.

Afterward, Dumbledore looked (except for his wand hand) and acted normally.

It looks like the "stoppered death" condition does not exhibit any obvious signs.

Dumbledore's wand hand was "black and shriveled; it looked as though his flesh had been burned away." But he still had the use of it. We get mixed impressions on how well it could be used. In "Will and Won't" Harry notes "He drew his wand so rapidly that Harry barely saw it." Yet, in "The House of Gaunt" Dumbledore "... was having difficulty pulling out the stopper of the crystal bottle: His injured hand seemed stiff and painful." Hermione characterized Dumbledore's hand as "looking dead." The hand remains "black and shriveled," "looking dead," throughout HBP.

We can surmise that, while death is "stoppered," injuries are not reversed and healing is also "stoppered." (Could be a bit gruesome if injuries are extensive.)

Dumbledore's death was "stoppered" throughout HBP.

There does not seem to be a time limit, or at least it is a long one, for the "stoppering" effect.

After drinking the cave potion Dumbledore seemed to decline, although he had considerable strength, at critical times.

The "stoppering" did not prevent the effects of the cave potion. It looks like "stoppering" death only works once or only works at the time it is administered. It does not prevent subsequent detrimental potions. It is also likely that a detrimental potion could cancel the "stoppering" effects.

Summarizing: The injured wizard must be alive for the "stopper death" potion to have any effect. There are no obvious, outward signs that death has been stoppered. The "stoppered" condition does not allow healing. Injuries can remain painful. Injuries don't have to adversely affect function. The "stoppering" effect lasts until negated. It is negated by another lethal (or very harmful) potion.

---------------------------------------------------------------

After writing "Dumbledore looked ... and acted normally" I got to wondering. Did anyone figure out that Dumbledore's death had been stoppered?

My thought was that Slughorn, being potions master, should have recognized that Dumbledore's wand hand was indicative of a serious injury that could only be countered with a "stopper death" potion. However, a reread of Dumbledore's meeting with Slughorn in "Horace Slughorn" didn't reveal even the barest hint.

Also, after "The Lightning-Struck Tower," no one said anything like "well, he hung on for almost a year" that would suggest they knew or had guessed that Dumbledore's death had been "stoppered." Of those we saw, grief seemed spontaneous and unexpected.

Looks like no one knew.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Aug 15, 2006 9:52 am (#62 of 1629)
Edited Aug 15, 2006 10:54 am

Well, perhaps we have seen the magical version of being a zombie? It would appear that it was primarily Dumbledore's body that was affected by the ring Horcrux - his mind seemed to be as sharp as ever. I have wondered if the injury to his hand was progressing (or would have progressed had Snape not stoppered it). Perhaps it was spreading and would have eventually covered his entire body. It was impossible to tell under his robes how extensive it was, although Harry assumed it affected only his hand and forearm. Maybe it was more extensive than that? I really like this theory that Dumbledore was dying from the ring Horcrux injury and that Snape was able to stopper it. Very intriguing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Aug 15, 2006 12:39 pm (#63 of 1629)
Edited Aug 15, 2006 1:39 pm

I can see what people are getting at but wouldnt stoppering death be more dark than white magic?

I would plump for Snape being able to slow down the spread of the Curse to the equivalent of a slow cancer rather than a rapidly spreading one that kills within a very short space of time. Dumbledore needed more time to pass on information to Harry. So it was not keeping him alive unnaturally. More like a shot of Chemo.

I am getting confused

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 15, 2006 4:06 pm (#64 of 1629)
Edited Aug 15, 2006 5:07 pm

There are still so many unanswered questions.

1.Why Dumbledore sent Harry for his cloak?

2.Why was Dumbledore clutching at his chest,Was he in pain or did he have something around his neck(real locket horcrux,metamorph medal,shield cloak?)

3.Why Jo originally would not say Dumbledore is dead and now after written a few chapters into book 7 finally announces that he is dead.

4.I am still not satisfied with why Jo did not answer if Dumbledore was one of the two deaths in book 7.

5.The Jam password.

Upon their arrival to Hogsmeade Dumbledore asked Harry to go fetch Snape "That potion... was no health drink." It sounds like he was pretty concerned about the effects of the potion.

There are still numerous questions/clues to be discussed reguarding what happened on the tower.Whether Snape is innocent or not,matters much,but basically everyone believes he is on the good side and innocent of actually killing Dumbledore,so finding out he didn't kill Dumbledore in book 7 would be no shocker.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 15, 2006 5:06 pm (#65 of 1629)
Edited Aug 15, 2006 6:10 pm

Madame Pomfrey ~ There are still so many unanswered questions.

I agree. Let's look at a couple.

1.Why Dumbledore sent Harry for his cloak?

This one has multiple puzzles. Dumbledore had told Harry to keep his cloak with him always. Dumbledore didn't ask "do you have your cloak?" Just to go and get it. It was almost like "go away for a while."

Did Harry have his cloak with him? I thought he did. Why didn't Harry say "I have it, sir."

A brief parting seemed convenient for both of them.

Harry used the opportunity to go to Ron and Hermione and set events up with them.

What did Dumbledore use that convenient time for? Snape was dressed and waiting when Flitwick went looking for him. Dumbledore told Harry to go and get Snape, expecting Snape to be waiting.

Dumbledore used the convenient time to alert Snape.

(I also note that Trelawney was near Dumbledore's office. Did he encounter her?)

Upon their arrival to Hogsmeade Dumbledore asked Harry to go fetch Snape "That potion... was no health drink."

Dumbledore needed Snape to administer the "stopper death" potion again. The cave potion had negated the previous dose.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


geauxtigers - Aug 15, 2006 8:52 pm (#66 of 1629)

These are good ideas everyone. I'm liking this theory the more we read it...Sure is a lot of guesswork though.

But I do think that it is very possible with this whole 'stopper death' thing. DoLD I think is our biggest clue. I'm going to sleep on this and maybe tomorrow when I'm not so tired I can add something worth while to this! ha ha!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 16, 2006 8:26 am (#67 of 1629)
Edited Aug 16, 2006 9:27 am

Good explaination on how Stopper death fits in,Soulsearch.I do like your theory.I am just trying like mad to fit in DoLD.Unfortunately,I now have a brain infarct and will have to get back to this discussion on a better day.

Geauxtigers,I'd like to hear your take on all this.

Where is Wynnleaf?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 16, 2006 8:30 am (#68 of 1629)
Edited Aug 16, 2006 9:36 am

Madame Pomfrey, let me take a stab at this question from your #64 post.

2.Why was Dumbledore clutching at his chest, Was he in pain or did he have something around his neck(real locket horcrux, metamorph medal, shield cloak?)

There is clear evidence that Dumbledore's condition started to deteriorate after he drank the cave potion. The ring horcrux curse had been "unstoppered" and was progressing. Dumbledore was hanging on by shear force of will. The pain is becoming intense and spreading. Dumbledore clutches his chest just after seeing the dark mark above the tower.

The only evidence is that Dumbledore was in increasing pain from the spreading, progressing, ring horcrux curse.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Back to your "1.Why Dumbledore sent Harry for his cloak?" question.

I wonder if Dumbledore also used the opportunity to save a pensieve memory for Harry? The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Lana - Aug 16, 2006 9:19 am (#69 of 1629)

Soul Search,

I think you made a good point there about Trelawney "(I also note that Trelawney was near Dumbledore's office. Did he encounter her?)"

Trelawney was absent from Dumbledore's funeral, was she not? Perhaps she knows something the others do not.

If if was up to me, Dumbledore wouldn't really be dead and Trelawney would know this fact and therefore not bother going to the funeral, but that's probably unlikely and it's just wishful thinking on my part. I REALLY don't want Dumbledore dead. =[

& to Madame Pomfrey:

3.Why Jo originally would not say Dumbledore is dead and now after written a few chapters into book 7 finally announces that he is dead.

I like your thinking. Maybe Dumbledore isn't dead yet but soon will be. Jo said the readers should start the grieving process, but that doesn't neccessarily mean Dumbledore is dead NOW, possibly that he will be soon though and that's why we should start mourning now. She also was really evasive about responding the question of if Dumbledore was included in the two major characters who would die.

what do you guys think?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Aug 16, 2006 10:08 am (#70 of 1629)

In the Emerson/Melissa interview they suggest to her that Dumbledore faked his death. She says something like, "Do you think that will be a big theory?" They tell her yes, and she says something like, well they do have fun with their theories, which always made me think that she was implying that Dumbledore faking his death was just a theory - she didn't want to burst any bubbles because we have so much fun with them.

When that 9 year old asked her point blank how could Dumbledore, the greatest wizard of all time, be dead, she practically broke down.

Then Mr. Rushdie comes along and she realizes that this is a major issue for us and she better clear it up right now because it is going to cloud everything for Book 7.

The real issue, I think, and what she tried to explain to Mr. Rushdie, is whether or not Snape is good.

She told us to get over our mourning, go through the steps because Dumbledore truly was dead.

She wasn't willing to break our hearts before, but she could see that we were headed down an unprofitable road and she had to stop our journey.

Just my opinion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Aug 16, 2006 11:02 am (#71 of 1629)

It would make sense to me that if in fact Snape did the stopper thing for Dumbledore, I would assume that Snape was informed as to why the injury occurred to begin with. That info passed on to Voldemort is a great tipoff as to the need for Voldemort to get rid of Dumbledore before he can get to all the Horcruxes, or tell Harry how to search for them. Without involving Snape the task was assigned to Draco. This would make perfect sense to me and how all parties are involved in the storyline. I wouldn't be surprised if Narcissa was under instructions to plead to Snape for help just to throw every him off the scent. Remember Voldemort doesn't trust nor does he care about anyone.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 16, 2006 11:47 am (#72 of 1629)
Edited Aug 16, 2006 12:47 pm

Thom, there are several questions that your idea raises.

First, if Snape did reveal the nature of Dumbledore's injury to Voldemort. Why did he fabricate a story concerning the nature of Dumbledore's injury. He could have revealed the true nature of the injury to them because, Bellatrix is so fanatical in her devotion to Voldemort that she would probably sacrifice herself for Voldemort.

Second, why would Voldemort send Pettigrew to "assist" Snape, if Severus were loyal could be trusted?

Third, if Snape is a loyal Death Eater why was the Unbreakable Vow necessary and why involve Draco at all? It seems unnecessary because were Severus Snape a loyal Death Eater whose devotion matched that of Bellatrix I am certain that Severus was quite capable of killing Dumbledore and making his escape without aid.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Aug 16, 2006 12:37 pm (#73 of 1629)

I have a question relating to a quote that has raised a number of further questions(I have been re-reading for the millionth time)

Had it not been-forgive me the lack of seemly modesty-for my own prodigious skill, and for professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale.

What was Dumbledore doing still at school when the Holidays had started?-He says that it happend a few days before he went to collect Harry. This suggests it was about 1 1/2 after the end of term had finished-the exact timing has been previously discussed. Did they use Hogwarts as HQ when they were unsure about Grimmauld Place? What was Snape doing there? Why did Snape not try and kill Dumbledore there if he was already aware of the plot to kill him? (Admittedly we would have not found out about all the horcruxes if DD was killed). There would not be much protection around him. He would probably have seen Snape on his own.

I dont know how much he told Snape. I assume that Dumbledore had destroyed the Horcrux. It would not be any help to show Snape a damaged ring whereas it was a help with the cursed necklace that Katy touched.

THis book has raised much more questions than answers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 16, 2006 1:10 pm (#74 of 1629)

Basically, I think we're left with 2 options about DD. Either he was already dying, and finished off the dying process the night of the tower events, OR he was injured, but otherwise strong, and the night of the tower events began his dying process. Either way, we're not talking about some sort of terminal illness, but a kind of stopped death, or DoLD circumstance, in which DD was during HBP, or is immediately after HBP, in some sort of death, but alive; or alive, but dead state. Either way we look at it, he'll definitely be completely dead in Book 7, if not at the first, then a bit later. Either way, the theories we're talking about include the idea that Snape's AK wasn't what killed DD.

But regardless which alternative works, I think JKR would still say that DD is "dead." Remember the question in her interview about who she'd invite to dinner? Reading the actual transcript, it really looks like she thinks of those who survive Book 7 as currently "alive," but those who don't as "dead" even if they weren't dead in HBP. By the way, that exchange of comments about invites to dinner gave credence to the notion that she only does birthday greetings on her site to characters that are now "alive" -- that is, survived book 7.

However, regardless of exactly when and where DD's dying takes place, there are other aspects mentioned in the past posts, where DD seems to have other plans going on in addition to this dying process. I think that's part of the problem. If he was clutching something in his cloak, it could have something to do with his death, or it could be something else he carried along (a horcrux?). Or whatever he did after he sent Harry to get the invisibility cloak -- that may have had something to do with DD's dying process, or it could have to do with some other plan DD was also working on.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Aug 16, 2006 1:16 pm (#75 of 1629)

I thought he sent Harry away so he could brief people on the fact that he was going away. It also gave Harry time to let his friends know what was happening. An added level of security. He always carried round his invisibiility cloak because DD asked him.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 76 to 100

Post  Lady Arabella on Sat May 14, 2011 6:49 pm

Soul Search - Aug 16, 2006 1:56 pm (#76 of 1629)

legolas returns, I like the quote you brought up:

"Had it not been -- forgive me the lack of seemly modesty -- for my own prodigious skill, and for professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale."

It confirms that Dumbledore's injury from the ring curse was mortal and that Snape "stoppered death" for Dumbledore. I note that Dumbledore didn't say "Snape cured the curse," just that it allowed him to "live to tell the tale."

Notice also that Dumbledore confesses to "prodigious skill" in fighting the ring curse and/or getting to Snape. There are a couple of places in HBP where he attributes his injured hand to "old and slow." These references are, obviously, a flippant misdirection to steer thoughts away from the serious nature of his injury.

----------------------------------------------------------

I think I would like to add a bit to my characterization of "stoppered death" as presented in post #61. After writing post #65 I ran across a reference to the Elixir of Life, which requires regular dosage to continue its effect. The Elixir of Life and the "stopper death" potion seem similar, so I think it a bit much to expect indefinate "stoppering" from a single dosage. No canon for it, but I think it belongs in the description.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 16, 2006 3:38 pm (#77 of 1629)

An update to the characteristics of "stoppered death."

In the previous post, I suggested that "stopper death" required regular dosage to maintain the effect. We have mixed references to how much Dumbledore has been affected by the ring curse and the "stopper death" potion. Sometimes he appears reasonably normal and capable and other times less that normal, even infirm. What we might be seeing is how long since the last application of the potion. If he had just taken it, he appears normal; if his last dosage is expiring, he is weak.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


geauxtigers - Aug 16, 2006 4:48 pm (#78 of 1629)

I like your theory, Soul Search. I think it works, but about the "stoppered death" requiring it being taken regularly, I dunno. I'm kinda stuck on the fence. I think its possible, but I dunno it doesn't seem very Dumbledore to me. Which is also why I think Jo would do it.

I think we need to distinguish the difference between DoLD and the term "stopper death" I'm not sure that DoLD is actually a "stoppered death" because technically if you aren't dying, and take DoLD, you aren't saving yourself from death, but simply going to sleep. Stoppered death to me means that you've stopped someone from death.

That being said, when DD came back to Snape after destroying the ring, Snape stoppers Dumbledore's death. When Dumbledore is in the cave, say it was Draught of Living Death in the basin, he goes into this death-like sleep ect.

I'm sorry if this is pointless but I was having trouble getting this all straight in my head and I'm probably not the only one. This is my take on it plus what Soul Search said. I just feel like we are using stopper death and DoLD closer than they are, but then again that could just be the fact that I'm tired and slightly confused. This is very complex and complicated, so once again, sorry for the long post and probably un-necessary explantaion, but oh well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 16, 2006 5:14 pm (#79 of 1629)

Going off what Tori said...

OK Dumbledore comes back from destroying the ring. He is in critcal condition, and goes to Snape, who gives him the"stoppered death". He continues to take this potion throughout the year, in order to benefit, not himself, but Harry. Dumbledore knows that he has very little time to give Harry all of this information. My thinking is that Dumbledore, most certainly went to the cave beforehand, just to check things out, before bringing Harry along, whom he cares about deeply. This makes sense to me, in the same way that a mom would check the details of a camp, before sending her kid there. Dumbledore doesn't want anyhting to happen to Harry, so he scopes it out, to make sure that Harry will be okay. So then, Dumbledore send Harry to get his invisibility cloak that night. Dumbledore sets his affairs in order, and such, and tells Snape that he will need him once he gets back. Harry returns and they set off. In the cave, Dumbledore, drinks DoLD. This undoes the "stoppered death" potion, and results in Dumbledore's weakness. He needs Snape to get to him quickly, so that he can "AK" him. Ok this is just getting to the point where it no longer makes any sense. Does anyone think they could build on this, or find some way for it to work out?? I like the stoppered death theory, but I also think that DoLD played a role as well, but I can't seem to get my theory straight here!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Aug 16, 2006 5:19 pm (#80 of 1629)

I do not think, if Snape "stoppered death" for Dumbledore when he was injured by the ring Horcrux, that Snape would necessarily have to know about the Horcruxes. I would say yes if he had treated Dumbledore for the injury itself - he would need to know the nature of the injury - but, if he just "stoppered death" he would not really need to know what caused the injury, only that Dumbledore was mortally wounded.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 16, 2006 7:18 pm (#81 of 1629)
Edited Aug 16, 2006 8:32 pm

I have been mulling over the lapse of time when Harry was absent from Dumbledore after Dumbledore sent him to fetch his cloak. I am inclined to agree with Ginny point that Dumbledore used the time to set in motion the following matters.

# First, I believe that Dumbledore ensured that Severus Snape would be ready and waiting to undertake whatever tasks the course of events dictated.


# Second is it possible that Albus and Aberforth communicated during this interval?


# Third, I agree with the possibility that Dumbledore encountered Trelawney. during this time and arranged for her to be safely sequestered as suggested by Soul Search in this post Soul Search, "Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?" #65, 15 Aug 2006 6:06 pm


# Fourth, given the close relationship between Dumbledore and Fawkes that Dumbledore imparted some form of instructions akin to the instructions given to Fawkes in OotP about needing a warning


# Fifth, I would argue that Dumbledore provided Harry with a way to learn the full truth about Dumbledore's death and the allegiances of Severus Snape when the apponted time comes?


# Last, I think that Dumbledore finalized plans for Harry's return to the Dursley's abd ensured that they would raise no objections.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Aug 17, 2006 6:18 am (#82 of 1629)

On the Potions thread we are discussing Wiggenwelds potion as the antidote to DoLD.Could this be why Dumbledore wanted Snape after drinking the cave liquid?I can't get past all the references to sleep and Dumbledore acting drowsy after the cave scene.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Aug 17, 2006 7:07 am (#83 of 1629)

Choices are you saying that Dumbledore just asked for the potion for his injury without Snape asking or even wondering why? I can't see that. Obviously Snape would see the hand and the blacken and shriviled up fingers. I believe that anyone would ask. I would also be concerned that he would need such a drastic potion for a hand injury.

I alos have trouble believing that the potion in the cave was the Draught of Living Death. I don't think that he was sleepy, but rather in pain. He appeared to me to be halucinating and very scared during the process. DoLD by my thinking would put you in a sleep state without much fuss rather then the agony DD went through.

That being said, and all the rest of our theorizing on this thread, I must assume that DD "trusted" Snape to brief him on the injury which was then followed up with the rest of my thought that Snape went to Voldemort who then hatched his plan with both Snape and Draco. Why else would Voldemort after all this time finally then decide to go after Dumbledore. Remember that the plan called for murder her. Voldemort for all of his faults never that I am aware of called for Dumbledore's assasination before. I would think that if DD is the greatest wizard, that would have been Voldemort's target long before this. But why now? Because DD was on to what was in fact Voldemort's imortality. That had to make his heart skip a bit of a beat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Aug 17, 2006 7:13 am (#84 of 1629)

Choices are you saying that Dumbledore just asked for the potion for his injury without Snape asking or even wondering why? I can't see that. Obviously Snape would see the hand and the blacken and shriviled up fingers. I believe that anyone would ask. I would also be concerned that he would need such a drastic potion for a hand injury.

I also have trouble believing that the potion in the cave was the Draught of Living Death. I don't think that he was sleepy, but rather in pain. He appeared to me to be halucinating and very scared during the process. DoLD by my thinking would put you in a sleep state without much fuss rather then the agony DD went through.

That being said, and all the rest of our theorizing on this thread, I must assume that DD "trusted" Snape to brief him on the injury which was then followed up with the rest of my thought that Snape went to Voldemort, who then hatched his plan with both Draco and Narcissa and through to Snape. Why else would Voldemort, after all this time, finally then decide to go after Dumbledore. Remember that the plan called for murder here. Voldemort for all of his faults never, that I am aware of, called for Dumbledore's assasination before. I would think that if DD is the greatest wizard, and therefore his greatest threat, that he would have been Voldemort's target long before this. But why now? Because DD was on to what was in fact Voldemort's imortality. That had to make his heart skip a bit of a beat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Aug 17, 2006 8:54 am (#85 of 1629)

I'm a Potions Master, Dumbledore, not a doctor!!!

Sorry, watched too much Star Trek lately.

I don't see Dumbledore telling Snape anything more than he needed to know.

Headmaster, what happened? "Never mind that now, Severus. Please procure some Wiggenweld Potion for me. I believe my reflexes may not be what they used to be."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Aug 17, 2006 9:53 am (#86 of 1629)
Edited Aug 17, 2006 10:57 am

Thom - "Choices are you saying that Dumbledore just asked for the potion for his injury without Snape asking or even wondering why? I can't see that. Obviously Snape would see the hand and the blacken and shriviled up fingers. I believe that anyone would ask. I would also be concerned that he would need such a drastic potion for a hand injury."

No, my point was that perhaps Snape did not treat the injury, he just gave Dumbledore the potion that would stopper his death. Dumbledore could have known he was dying and the injury to his hand/arm was blackened and charred looking (not bloody or needing a dressing), so all he asked of Snape was to keep him alive long enough to set his affairs in order - finish teaching Harry, leave memories, etc. Snape may well have asked him what caused the injury, but that does not mean that Dumbledore told him. He could simply have told him he would know when the time was right, until then just put a stopper on his dying to give him more time to wrap things up.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 17, 2006 11:41 am (#87 of 1629)
Edited Aug 17, 2006 12:55 pm

Comments related to "Stoppered Death" Theory and continuing discussion.

geauxtigers, #78. I agree, the "Stopper Death" and "Draught of Living Death" are separate potions, with different effects.

Repeated dosage of "stopper death" isn't an essential element of the theory, but it helps explain Dumbledore's varying degrees of infirm during HBP.

virginiaelizabeth, #79 My thinking is that Dumbledore, most certainly went to the cave beforehand, just to check things out ... I agree, question is how far had he gone?

Dumbledore did tell Harry he had "found" the cave, so he had been there. Clearly, he had been at least to the blood-wall. Having found the cave, could he possibly have stopped at the wall? I don't think so. Question is, how far did he go? If he had gone past the wall at all, he was deceiving Harry.

He seems to discover and breeze through Voldemort's protections rather easily. Great wizard though he is, I can't help but believe he had explored them before. When Harry questioned his "seeing" the cave's magic, Dumbledore's response is a bit brief, like he was avoiding the question.

I could even go so far as to accept that Dumbledore knew he would have to drink the potion, someone else would need to be there to make him finish the potion, and that he would need Snape to give him the "stopper death" potion again. Otherwise, there was too much concidence to the whole affair.

Choices, #80 We might think of "stopper death" as a last ditch potion. If nothing else will counter a deadly curse, then one has to use "stopper death." There are, no doubt, consequences we haven't figured out yet.

Nathan Zimmermann, #81 Fifth, I would argue that Dumbledore provided Harry with a way to learn the full truth about Dumbledore's death and the allegiances of Severus Snape when the apponted time comes?

We may be able to take this one a bit further. In "The Seer Overheard" Harry is shouting at Dumbledore about Snape telling the prophecy to Voldemort. Harry's distrust of Snape has reached a new high. Harry asks "Professor ... how can you be sure Snape's on our side?" Previously, when Harry has (again) asked this question, Dumbledore has given him some short, even terse, non-answer. This time, however, "Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something." Is this a clue, or what!

Dumbledore has realized that Harry will have to have some explanation about Snape. The cave and horcrux could mean Dumbledore's death and Harry would have to, finally, have a good reason to trust Snape. This is why Dumbledore sent Harry to "get his cloak." He may have used the opportunity for other things, but the one thing he did do was leave a pensive memory for Harry, just in case.

Thom Matheson, #83 I think Dumbledore would tell him about the ring and curse, but NOT about horcruxes. Snape wouldn't press him, but might have figured it out.

We do have to keep in mind that Draco was given an "impossible" task. On the rest, the "Stopper Death" theory requires, but also supports, the "Snape is Dumbledore's Man" side.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Fawkes Egg - Aug 17, 2006 1:26 pm (#88 of 1629)
Edited Aug 17, 2006 2:34 pm

Great summary wynnleaf! I agree completely that Dumbledore's death had a lot of mystery around it, not least because I think he allowed it to happen (I always accepte dit as real, bt maybe I'm just pessimistic!). That's likely all part of his philosophy that there are worse things than death - like losing to Voldy, perhaps?

You mentioned that some of the odd events may mean something and others may mean nothing. Here's my attempt to sort a few out.

The AK and the body: most of this means nothing much I think -

Bodies can bleed after death, including during post mortem investgations hours after death (although of course it's not quite the same as bleeding in a living person and the longer a person has been dead for, the less the bleeding, see link) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Plus, we don't know all the effects of the potion Dumbledore had taken. Perhaps he'd been bleeding internally and the blood had nothing to do with the AK.

Dumbledore's eyes being closed: how many examples do we actually have of someone witnessing an AK? Harry saw Frank Bryce in a dream and Cedric in front of him. He was too small to remember more than the green light and the screams when his parents died. Nothing about Frank's eyes being opened or closed in the Raincoast edition.

The AK had enough force to destroy Lily and James Potter's house, as reported by Hagrid in PoA. It could certainly have hurled Dumbledore's slumped body up and over the parapet. Plus, when Pettigrew AKed Cedric, Harry was writhing around due to the pain in his scar. All he actually saw was the usual green light and then Cedric's dead body. Only Frank Bryce is described as crumpling up on the spot.

I don't think these clues, therefore, tell us much about the mystery around Dumbledore's death. But some of the other clues do mean something potentially major:

I agree completely that there was something going on with that smoky phoenix. I suspect that that will reappear in some form, along with Dumbledore's portrait and numerous Chocolate Frog cards! Didn't one of the Weasley twins once remark that Dumbldore didn't mind what the Ministry did to ostracise him as long as they didn't take him off the Chocolate Frog cards? To me, this suggests that Dumbledore knew he was likely to die in the war, and prepared for it so that his ghost or portraits would still be able to help Harry out.

Just pondering the ease with which Dumbledore dealt with the school's protections on the way back from Hogsmeade. In PoA the staff taught the castle doors to magically recognise a portrait of Sirius after he broke into Gryffindor tower. Could Dumbledore have taught the walls and gates to recognise him as the legitimate Headmaster? Other evidence for this sort of magical recognition is in OotP, when Dumbledore's office seals itself against Umbridge after she takes over.

Dumbledore was in that cave before he took Harry there. How long ago it's hard to say - but he's known of it ever since he met young Tom Riddle in the orphanage. I think he's been there a lot. I think he got so far and then realised he'd need another person there. Who better to take than Harry?

Wow, that was a long post! I'm gonna shut up now! ;o)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


timrew - Aug 17, 2006 1:35 pm (#89 of 1629)

I think the deaths of Dumbledore and Sirius have been very weakly written. Neither of these deaths has been believable at all, even though JKR has insisted that these characters are dead.

Judging by the amount of speculation surrounding each death, the majority of readers don't want to believe it, either.

It's almost as if JKR feels that these characters have to go, then proceeds to do it in the nicest way possible; leaving her readers to speculate as to whether these characters are dead or not.

At least that's what I believe! Would anyone care to comment on this?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 17, 2006 2:28 pm (#90 of 1629)

I also have trouble believing that the potion in the cave was the Draught of Living Death. Thom

There are so many references to sleep in that chapter and those following it:

His eyes were still closed, his breathing heavy." When you are alseep your eyes are of course closed and your breathing is heavy.

His face was twitching as though he was deeply asleep, but dreaming a horrible dream. Deeply asleep....isn't that what DOLD does?

Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping.

There is also the first potion's lesson, where it's mentioned, and the lesson with Slughorn. All of those potions have been used already. Wolfsbane in the potion for Lupin, bezoar was used to save Ron, Felix Felicis, Polyjuice, have all been used as well in HBP. Ameoretia (sp?) was not used, but forshadowed Ginny/Harry.

I'm sure that there are more sleep references but I honestly got tired of looking! Feel free to add to it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Aug 17, 2006 4:52 pm (#91 of 1629)
Edited Aug 17, 2006 5:53 pm

Well, death is described variously as the big sleep, the final sleep, eternal rest, etc. Perhaps all the sleep references were just indicative of death.

About the blood on Dumbledore's lips - I have always figured it was the result of the fall - it was just seconds since he was AK'd by Snape and the impact on the ground may have caused him to inadvertantly bite his tongue or lip or the inside of his cheek causing the blood.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Aug 17, 2006 5:23 pm (#92 of 1629)

Also regarding the basin in the cave, this may not have been the real potion that was there from Voldemort. R.A.B. was there before Dumbledore and Harry, so we cannot be sure what was in the basin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 17, 2006 8:46 pm (#93 of 1629)

I wonder if the liquid in the basin ties in with the spider venom. Otherwise why make a point of having Slughorn remind us how rare and valuable and deadly it is?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Aug 18, 2006 4:01 am (#94 of 1629)

Also, what was the mystery RAB thinking. Did he think that Voldemort would have to drink it to get his Horcrux back? If so, did he change it up?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 18, 2006 7:39 am (#95 of 1629)

Die Zimtzicke,

I don't think the spider venom ties in with the liquid in the basin, but now you have got me wondering how the spider venom will tie into book seven. Such a powerful poison should work on anyone ... say Voldemort.

Oh, even better, wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic if venom from the very spider that Tom Riddle attacked and caused Hagrid to be expelled was used to destroy Voldemort? I like it!

Talk about fitting a long chain of clues together. JKR would do it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Aug 18, 2006 8:50 am (#96 of 1629)

Wow! Now there's a connection for you!!

I think Harry should take 1 drop of the Lucky Potion (Felix whatever) every day, just to be on the safe side.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 18, 2006 10:17 am (#97 of 1629)

Maybe Slughorn actually made the green liquid in the basin at some point. We still don't know for sure if he's really good, bad or in-between. After all, he either WAS a DE, or in with them. When Dumbledore made the remark about the dark mark not being over that house, he said he didn't have time to put it up. He never said he didn't know how. If Slughorn has anything to do with Dumbledore's death, even inadvertantly, that would be a great twist.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Aug 18, 2006 10:29 am (#98 of 1629)

Why do we think only Death Eaters know how to conjure the Dark Mark?

Arthur said the kids wouldn't know how to do it - I figured it was because they were so young, they didn't even know what the Dark Mark was.

They thought Winky wouldn't know how to conjure the Dark Mark because she was a house elf. I thought that was just more wizarding prejudice - why couldn't an elf learn how to use a wand and say a spell?? There were laws against elves using wands, so they must be pretty good at it.

Slughorn is old and he's a teacher. I'm sure he knows lots of things. Being able to hold up a wand and say "Morsmorde" doesn't seem to be so difficult.

I think he's just a pompous jerk who likes crystalized pineapple. He doesn't need to be a Death Eater. He's obnoxious enough as it is.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Aug 18, 2006 10:45 am (#99 of 1629)

I think that Slughorn was trying to have a good comeback line to Dumbledores amusement over the mess and lack of the Dark Mark. Slughorn had nothing to do with Dumbledores death in my opinion. He is described as liking to influence people but not be in the limelight himself. Killing Dumbledore would reduce his possible influence if the school closed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 18, 2006 11:54 am (#100 of 1629)

To add what Legolas just said in his prior post. Any involvement by Slughorn in the death of Dumbledore could possibly damage many of the connections and relations he has cultivated through the Slug Club over the years.

Back to your "1.Why Dumbledore sent Harry for his cloak?" question.

I wonder if Dumbledore also used the opportunity to save a pensieve memory for Harry? The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 101 to 125

Post  Lady Arabella on Sat May 14, 2011 7:22 pm



geauxtigers - Aug 18, 2006 12:39 pm (#101 of 1629)

Personally, I don't think Ole Sluggy is a DE. (Its not canon as far I as remember, so correct me if I'm wrong) Like Legolas, I think he is more concerned about who he is connected with, rather than being the one in the limelight. He enjoys having those connections to people just so he can brag that he was there teacher ect.

So the question is, was he involed in Dumbledore's death? I don't think so. Arrogant, annoying prat he may be, I don't think he is evil by any stretch. Of course there may be more to him than what we've seen, but I don't see it. To me he is about as dangerous as Lockhart without his memory. The worst thing Sluggy would or has done is subconscienously influene Tom Riddle. Even then Tom was well on his way to evil and I don't think what Slughorn said would have much of an affect on him.

I like the theory about the spider venom too! There are so many spider things bewtween HBP and CoS. And I do think that its a very JKR way of foreshadowing.

So how could this relate to Dumbledore's murder? Maybe Snake venom is more than meets the eye...we should move this to a more topic-related thread, I think.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 18, 2006 12:59 pm (#102 of 1629)

I think it fits fine here, as we are talking about how it relates to Dumbledore's death.

We still don't know for sure if he's really good, bad or in-between. After all, he either WAS a DE, or in with them. When Dumbledore made the remark about the dark mark not being over that house, he said he didn't have time to put it up. He never said he didn't know how.

I'll second what everyone else has said. Slughorn isn't a DE, he's a bright wizard, and knowing how to conjure the Dark Mark doesn't make him a DE or even put him league with them. 50 bucks says that Dumbledore also knew how to conjure the mark, and he's one of the most anti-dark arts you can get. He's had enough experience in life to know these sorts of things, and I feel like Sluggy is near this status, but not at Dumbledore's level. It doesn't seem suspious to me at all that Slughorn would know the spell.

I'm liking how this venom thing is sounding. I wish I could add ro it, but I can't think of anything!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


MichaelmasGal - Aug 19, 2006 1:01 am (#103 of 1629)

Soul Search- Aug 10, 2006 9:57 am (#15 of 102) We learned in SS, the first potions class, that Snape could brew a potion that could "stopper death." Dumbledore died from the ring horcrux. Snape was able to "stopper" Dumbledore's death, but the hand had already died.

By "stopper death" Snape meant he could bottle it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Aug 19, 2006 1:09 am (#104 of 1629)
Edited Aug 19, 2006 2:18 am

timrew wrote:

I think the deaths of Dumbledore and Sirius have been very weakly written. Neither of these deaths has been believable at all, even though JKR has insisted that these characters are dead.

Ok, tim, I'll bite.

Why do you not think these deaths are "believable"? Why could Sirius not have been fighting with Bellatrix and she zapped him and he fell through the veil? Admittedly, this whole veil thing is a mystery - as Jo wants it to be for now -, and I'm quite sure more will be revealed about the veil and Sirius' death in Book Seven. But "unbelievable"? Not a word I would use. And a ton of stuff has been written on several Forum threads about the truth about Dumbledore's death (eg - that the potion in the basin in the cave really killed him or made him so sick that he would die anyway, that Snape really did kill him for LV, that Snape was acting on DD's orders when he AK'd him on the Tower, etc.). I agree that there may be ... ok, are for sure unanswered questions about DD's death and possibly even Sirius'. That's something Jo is craftily leaving till Book Seven. "Unanswered questions," however, is not the same as "unbelievable" in my view, though.

Judging by the amount of speculation surrounding each death, the majority of readers don't want to believe it, either.

Of course they don't! First she makes us - well, some of us - care about and even love both Harry's protector (DD) and his godfather, and then she takes the two of them from Harry -- and us. Is it any wonder there has been so much denial around? It has nothing to do with the believability of the deaths; just the fact that they happened.

Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote, tim, or the point you were making, but I don't think the deaths were weakly written. I just think she told us part of the story concerning them -- very deliberately.

(cue Big Revelation in last book)

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 19, 2006 6:54 am (#105 of 1629)

By "stopper death" Snape meant he could bottle it. –MichaelmasGal

“I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death-“

This has been debated many times. It's very cleverly written as well, so as not to give too much information away. It can mean one of two things: 1.) a potion that can stop death or 2.) quite literally stoppering death in a bottle.

It just depends on which way you look at it. For this theory in particular, it means a potion taht can stop death. We could all end up being as wrong as that guy(forgot his name) who thought the time was ripe for a chees cauldron! Just a bit of speculation!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Aug 19, 2006 9:17 am (#106 of 1629)

I can certainly see the point of brewing a potion that can, even temporarily, stop death, but what purpose would it serve to put death in a bottle? I vote for the first option.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Aug 19, 2006 9:23 am (#107 of 1629)

I see stopper as, "to put a cork in it". "To cap it". If I have a bottle that leaks I put a "stopper" in it to end the leak. Therefore being end death. I have Snape getting to Dumbledore and stopping his death just after the envolvement of the hand. Snape ceased death to continue from that point forward. He stopped the leak. Not able to save the hand but stopper the rest of his body from being "infected" with the rest of the curse that enveloped his hand.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Aug 19, 2006 10:08 am (#108 of 1629)

I can certainly see the point of brewing a potion that can, even temporarily, stop death, but what purpose would it serve to put death in a bottle? I vote for the first option.

Death in a bottle would be poison. One can brew fame, glory, death (i.e., poison); then bottle fame, glory, death (i.e., poison); then stopper (place cork in said bottle) fame, glory, death (i.e., poison). That's the way I see Snape's statement, anyway, that it was stating the same thing three times, same structure, different words.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 19, 2006 11:29 am (#109 of 1629)

I like your description Thom. That's how I see it as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Magic Words - Aug 19, 2006 1:23 pm (#110 of 1629)

That's what I thought, Mrs. Brisbee. Snape is using the same sentence structure, speaking poetically about his subject (as he does about Dark Arts in HBP).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 19, 2006 1:34 pm (#111 of 1629)
Edited Aug 19, 2006 2:36 pm

Snape is using the same sentence structure, speaking poetically about his subject (as he does about Dark Arts in HBP).

I agree. However, it would be nice if we knew more about what stoppers death. In general, JKR has made use of any potions, spells, etc. that she spends any time describing earlier in a book.

Because we've never gotten any sort of description of this particular thing that can stopper death, I personally don't have nearly so strong a sense that she'd use it. We don't even know if Snape was speaking of an "it." That is, we don't really know if Snape was speaking of any particular One Potion, that can "stopper death." He may simply have been speaking poetically about the fact that many potions can amazingly rescue a person from death.

On the other hand, we have lots and lots of description about Draught of Living Death, without -- obviously intended -- a good description of exactly what it does. That seems like a much more likely potion for JKR to use in a climactic moment -- both because she's "set the stage" for us to accept it's use, and because she's conveniently not told us exactly what to expect in its use.

As regards Sirius and DD's deaths -- I don't think they're weak at all. Certainly there are many unexplained circumstances around both deaths. And it's those mysteries that cause readers to speculate. But JKR intends the speculation, and it's not a weakness in her writing when she gets we readers to do exactly what she wants us to do.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Aug 19, 2006 2:26 pm (#112 of 1629)

We certainly have Draught of Living Death on Chekov's wall, but I can't see any application to either "stopper death" or the cave potions.

Given its buildup I would expect the term to be used when it became important. Neither of the cave potions are named (leaving some doubt, of course.)

Dumbledore does exhibit some "sleep-like" characteristics after drinking the basin potion, but nothing like "the most powerful sleeping draft." Unless we want to invent things like Dumbledore could resist it, the basin potion is something else.

There would be no reason for the lake potion (if it is a potion) to be Draught of Living Death; inferi are already dead, so wouldn't need it.

Draught of Living Death was an inviting concept when there were doubts as to Dumbledore's death, but with him truely dead, it doesn't seem to fit anywhere in HBP.

I wonder if it is important that the trio knows how to brew Draught of Living Death.

I think we have to wait for the "continuing" book seven. I rather like the "Sleeping Beauty" idea mentioned on the "Potions" topic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


geauxtigers - Aug 19, 2006 3:21 pm (#113 of 1629)

Mrs Brisbee, that is what I thought too. Thats what I was getting at with my post on the differences between 'stoppered death' and Draught of Living Death. But I also agree that stoppered death can mean a potion that stops you from dying. I think both work equally as well and can be interpreted either way. I first interpreted as it can stop death, but after more thought, I realized it could be either. The question is, which one is JKR meaning for us to interpret? It could be either, we just don't know. I like them both equally well, but not sure which one fits the plot of Dumbledore's death better....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Fawkes Egg - Aug 19, 2006 3:38 pm (#114 of 1629)

Tim,

I believed both those deaths, but maye that's because I was more willing to accept them than others might have been - or maybe I'm just more pessimistic than most!

But I think you have a point in that JKR maybe sugar-coated things a bit, which really goes against the theme of fates worse than death that runs through the books. Sirius' death scene was just vaguely written IMO. Dumbledore's description was OK up to the point where Harry sees the body on the ground, and then it got a bit fluffy. That did't fit with the starker description of Cedric's death at all. A basic "He was dead" did the job nicely there I thought.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


timrew - Aug 19, 2006 5:15 pm (#115 of 1629)

All I meant to say was, I think JKR led us into a whole lot of, 'is he dead, isn't he?', speculation about these two characters..........

If she'd just come out and said Sirius was dead and gone, Dumbledore was dead and gone, in the books, then she could have saved her readers a whole lot of speculation...........This is where I think she blew it!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 19, 2006 5:32 pm (#116 of 1629)

If she'd just come out and said Sirius was dead and gone, Dumbledore was dead and gone, in the books, then she could have saved her readers a whole lot of speculation...........This is where I think she blew it!

I'd consider that a big success. She wants people to speculate! Come on! It's pretty obvious.

I don't necessarily think she wanted or expected so much speculation about Sirius. I think she wanted his death to be quick and so "simple" -- the falling through the veil -- that it would give a real picture of how sudden death can be and how brief and slim the line can be between life and death.

But with Dumbledore, I'm sure that she wanted lots of speculation. In fact, given that she's now said that answers about Dumbledore's death are in Book 7 -- well, that pretty much assures us that there's some strange things about his death that she wanted people to wonder about, but didn't plan on telling us right away.

How can JKR have "blown it" when she had all of us doing exactly what she wanted us to do? Speculate, speculate, speculate....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


geauxtigers - Aug 19, 2006 9:42 pm (#117 of 1629)

How can JKR have "blown it" when she had all of us doing exactly what she wanted us to do? Speculate, speculate, speculate.... I agree! She wants us to guess, She wants us to sit around and fream up elaborate theories that turn out to nothing. She probably loves hearing all this! I know I would!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Aug 20, 2006 7:53 am (#118 of 1629)
Edited Aug 20, 2006 8:56 am

If she'd just come out and said Sirius was dead and gone, Dumbledore was dead and gone, in the books, then she could have saved her readers a whole lot of speculation...........This is where I think she blew it!

Well, I think Rowling was very clear in HBP about Dumbledore being dead. She showed it, the characters kept saying it, Harry accepted it. Not sure what else she could do, really.

The speculation exists because of Mysterious Circumstances, I think. I have a lot of questions about what happened the night of the Tower, even with always having been firmly in the Dumbledore Is Not Dead camp. I think the speculation was rampant because of the oddities surrounding Dumbledore's death (although I don't find most of the points listed by wynnleaf in the first and second posts odd, there are several I do, plus a few not on the list).

Not sure where I'm going with this, except to say there are a few things I'd like Rowling to explain to make the events of that night add up coherently, and I have to assume she has good reason to wait till book 7 to sort everything out.

Now, back to "stoppered death".

Thats what I was getting at with my post on the differences between 'stoppered death' and Draught of Living Death. But I also agree that stoppered death can mean a potion that stops you from dying. I think both work equally as well and can be interpreted either way. --geauxtigers

Yes, I understand what you are saying, and how people get "a potion to stop death" from "stoppered death". But I think the sentence structure strongly supports "put a stopper in a bottle of deadly poison". Also, I don't think we have ever seen a Stopper Death Potion in the six books, or even something that might have that nickname. There's not a lot of evidence, beyond that one dubious sentence, to suggest such a potion exists.

We do know that Snape was able to save Dumbledore after his arm injury, I remember Dumbledore saying as much, but I can't remember where in the book. I don't recall him saying how Snape managed it. Can someone direct me to the relevant passage, please, so I can refresh my memory?

Snape was also able to save Katie Bell after she touched that opal necklace. Here's Dumbledore, from HBP, Ch13, "The Secret Riddle":

.... She appears to have brushed the necklace with the smallest amount of skin: Had she put it on, had she even held it in her ungloved hand, she would have died, perhaps instantly. Luckily Professor Snape was able to do enough to prevent a rapid spread of the curse--

Why him? asked Harry quickly. "Why not Madame Pomfrey?"

[... snippage of Phinnaes Nigellus Black's interruption...]

Professor Snape knows much more about the Dark Arts than Madame Pomfrey, Harry. Anyway, the St. Mungo's staff is sending me hourly reports, and I am hopeful that Katie will make a full recovery.

Here Snape has saved Katie, but no mention of potions is made. Disturbingly, it is his skill at Dark Arts-- not Defense Against the Dark Arts-- which is relevant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 20, 2006 8:23 am (#119 of 1629)

I actually think that Snape being able to do enough to prevent the spread of the curse, is a really big clue. I think it supports our theory that "stoppered death" could possibly be used to prevent the rapid speard of a curse. He basically stopped Katie from dying. He could have given her the "stoppered death" potion and that stopped her from dying until she could get to St. Mungo's for treatment. THe same could be said about Dumbledore. Snape could have given him the stoppered death potion to prevent him from dying. Make sense?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Aug 20, 2006 8:34 am (#120 of 1629)
Edited Aug 20, 2006 9:34 am

I think it is clear that Snape did stop the spread of both Dumbledore's and Katie's curses. But the relevant talent mentioned by Dumbledore is skill in the Dark Arts, not potion making. Dumbledore said Madame Pomfrey was useless for curing Katie because she didn't know Dark Arts, not because she didn't know potion making. That Snape used a potion is pure conjecture. He might have. Or he might have used a spell. Or a magical item. Or magical creature. We know what he did, but not how he did it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


timrew - Aug 20, 2006 2:02 pm (#121 of 1629)
Edited Aug 20, 2006 3:04 pm

So what you are saying is that JKR 'invented' Mark Evans to have us 'speculating' over that................

Well, you have to speculate to accumulate, as they say..........

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 20, 2006 3:10 pm (#122 of 1629)

JKR 'invented' Mark Evans to have us 'speculating' over that

I thought that was just a glitch in her writing she chose Evans because it's a common last name in the UK. i don't think she did it to make us speculate necessarily, it was just a name.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Aug 20, 2006 4:18 pm (#123 of 1629)

As far as I'm concerned, Jo showed Dumbledore dying, his funeral, the reactions of his friends, and allies, and his tomb. He was dead as a doornail, or a coffin nail, as Ebenezer Scrooge thought was more appropriate. He had a portrait, and Jo told a questioner that the portraits were all of dead people. No one in the text doubted it for a minute.

There was a bit more wiggle room with Sirus, but not much. We saw him go and everyone respond to his death. No one in the text doubted that, either. Dumbledore and Remus, the two people Harry trusts most, tried to help him come to terms with the death. And Jo has said over and over and over, that dead is dead in the magical world. She isn't, in my opinion, going to show Harry watchin a fake death. He's got to be grounded in reality.

I never got why anyone thought they might be alive. It was a fun pair of theories, but Jo never supported them in interview or text. That's where we have to look for serious theories. Now, does Jo shoot down such theories? Yes, she does, sometimes, but at least we have the cold comfort of knowing what evidence we based them on. We didn't have that with Dumbledore or Sirius.

Back to Slughorn and the DE...I never said he was one. I said he could have been, or he could have been in with them. He was in Slytherin, and he liked hanging around with talented, powerful people. He has to know Death Eaters. And I still don't think the average wizard knows how to cast a Dark Mark. I would think they would keep that spell in house, so to speak, whenever possible, sort of like a secret fraternity handhake or something.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


virginiaelizabeth - Aug 20, 2006 7:01 pm (#124 of 1629)

I never got why anyone thought they might be alive. It was a fun pair of theories, but Jo never supported them in interview or text. That's where we have to look for serious theories. Now, does Jo shoot down such theories? Yes, she does, sometimes, but at least we have the cold comfort of knowing what evidence we based them on. We didn't have that with Dumbledore or Sirius. - Die

I see it totally different than that. I think there was plenty of evidence that backed up Dumbledore being alive. That evidence just proves to lead somewhere different than what we thought. I'm not going to repeat what the evidence is, because it's to extensive, and wynnleaf wrote them all out at the beginning of this thread. I don't think that anyone was basing the theory of Dumbledore being alive off of non-existent evidence. The evidence was there, but the final outcome is not what we originally thought. She never supported them, but she also never shot them down. HBP came out over a year ago, and it took her an enitre year to finally confirm that he was dead. The clues were written right there in the book, and she didn't give us a straight answer for an entire year. Why shouldn't we have speculated?

That's the whole point of this thread, to try and find another way of working these clues into the story. Just because we have confirmation that Dumbledore is definately dead, doesn't make those clues and evidence we used go away. They lead somewhere, and that's what we are trying to figure out.

As for Sluggy, I just don't see him as the DE type. Nor do I think that the average wizard would know how to conjure the Dark Mark. There are probably some out there, like Slughorn who know how to do it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are a DE. I see your point on that but I just don't agree with it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


geauxtigers - Aug 20, 2006 7:17 pm (#125 of 1629)

I never got why anyone thought they might be alive. It was a fun pair of theories, but Jo never supported them in interview or text. That's where we have to look for serious theories. Now, does Jo shoot down such theories? Yes, she does, sometimes, but at least we have the cold comfort of knowing what evidence we based them on. We didn't have that with Dumbledore or Sirius.

I also agree with Ginny on this. The evidence it there, the thoery fit and it also made sense. Yes there were some holes, and yes some thought those who think he faked his death were mad, but isn't that what this is for? Yes we were wrong, but like Ginny said, our evidence is still there, it just doesn't lead where we thought. Clearly this mystery is much deeper than we thought. We all jumped at those clues, shooting straight for the most obvious conclusion from the evidence that was and still is, present.

I don't think that the average wizard knows how do conjure the Dark Mark, but I don't think its un heard of. The spell I'm sure is not a secret, Harry, Ron and Hermione all know it now. I don't think it makes you a death eater either, I'd be willing to bet DD could've conjured it if he wanted to. But I don't think he would in the slightest. Sluggy doesn't strike me as the DE type.

I don't think Sluggy had anything to do with Dumbledore's death, he's just not brave enough for lack of a better word. I don't think he is evil, yes he is a Slytherin, and he's an odd character, but I think he knows right from wrong better than most Slytherins. So did he have anything to do with his death? Nope I don't think so...

Slughorn is old and he's a teacher. I'm sure he knows lots of things. Being able to hold up a wand and say "Morsmorde" doesn't seem to be so difficult.

I think he's just a pompous jerk who likes crystalized pineapple. He doesn't need to be a Death Eater. He's obnoxious enough as it is.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 126 to 150

Post  Lady Arabella on Mon May 16, 2011 8:17 pm

Saracene - Aug 21, 2006 4:10 am (#126 of 1629)

---I think it is clear that Snape did stop the spread of both Dumbledore's and Katie's curses. But the relevant talent mentioned by Dumbledore is skill in the Dark Arts, not potion making.---

That's an interesting point. I would tend to believe that in order to stop a curse you would need a counter-curse - much like what we've seen with Sectumsempra. And as far as I can remember "curses" have always been classed as "spells" and never as something you'd concoct with ingredients in a form of a potion. Therefore I think that Snape would treat Dumbledore's Horcrux injury with counter-spells rather than potions (which BTW also need brewing time and that's something DD wouldn't have seeing that he came to school badly injured).

What it means in terms of Snape's first-year comments and the Stoppered Death theory: personally I'd look at them as an indirect hint rather than a literal one - i.e., that Snape can brew a potion that would stop the process of death and that's what he's done with DD and his injury.

Regarding DD's death in HBP, for me the clincher was the UV's third clause which, as far as I was concerned, had the ruthless simplicity about it: either DD dies in the tower scene or Snape dies. Snape lives, therefore DD is dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 21, 2006 6:12 am (#127 of 1629)

Saracene said:

That's an interesting point. I would tend to believe that in order to stop a curse you would need a counter-curse - much like what we've seen with Sectumsempra. And as far as I can remember "curses" have always been classed as "spells" and never as something you'd concoct with ingredients in a form of a potion. Therefore I think that Snape would treat Dumbledore's Horcrux injury with counter-spells rather than potions (which BTW also need brewing time and that's something DD wouldn't have seeing that he came to school badly injured).


Further, in Katie's case, it was completely unexpected that a student would be cursed like this, and Snape really only had a brief time to treat Katie, so there wasn't time for brewing potions. This sounds like Snape did some sort of counter curses.

Snape's quote from SS/PS:

"I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses ... I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death . . . "

I don't think there's anything definite here that tells us that "stopper death," is one particular potion. Personally, I don't feel comfortable developing a theory around the idea that "stopper death" is some particular potion. But more especially, I don't think JKR would use a "stopper death potion" as a prime unknown factor in important events in HBP, when she has not yet really told us anything about it, or even if there is such a potion. In the past, JKR has used potions, spells, etc. that had been previously described.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Aug 21, 2006 6:55 am (#128 of 1629)
Edited Aug 21, 2006 7:56 am

The speculation exists because of Mysterious Circumstances, I think. I have a lot of questions about what happened the night of the Tower, even with always having been firmly in the Dumbledore Is Not Dead camp

Argh! I said that! and it's way to late to edit. I've always been firmly in the Dumbledore Is Dead camp, not Not Dead camp. Sorry, just felt I needed to correct myself.

I don't think there's anything definite here that tells us that "stopper death," is one particular potion. Personally, I don't feel comfortable developing a theory around the idea that "stopper death" is some particular potion. But more especially, I don't think JKR would use a "stopper death potion" as a prime unknown factor in important events in HBP, when she has not yet really told us anything about it, or even if there is such a potion. In the past, JKR has used potions, spells, etc. that had been previously described.-- wynnleaf

I agree. And as Saracene pointed out, we have seen Snape use a spell to heal the effects of Sectumsmpra, so Rowling has shown SuperHealerSnape in action using a counter-curse. I think a theory based around spells, Snape's knowledge of the Dark Arts, and what we know about Dumbledore and Katie's curses would be more fruitful.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Aug 21, 2006 8:38 am (#129 of 1629)
Edited Aug 21, 2006 9:40 am

I think a theory based around spells, Snape's knowledge of the Dark Arts, and what we know about Dumbledore and Katie's curses would be more fruitful.

If I was going to use my own advice, I guess I'd say that the best theories are going to depend on spells, potions, etc. that we've already seen JKR describe something about them.

Suppose we were trying to predict the end of one of the other books (assuming 7 is like the second half of 6/7). We'd find that the best theories would use tools (potions, spells, creatures, etc.) we knew about from earlier in the book. The only real exception I can find to that is the time-turner, which we only had the slightest inkling of in Hermione's comings and goings.

While one could think of the time-turner as a big exception to this idea (that JKR presents her catalog of spells, charms, etc. first, prior to using them), I would point out a big difference.

With the time-turner, we didn't learn about it until right at the point of crisis in the book. However, we were not told about the time-turner's use in the climax in retrospect. Instead, we were introduced to the time-turner and then saw it in use throughout the climactic parts of POA. We did not find ourselves at the ending of POA, with Sirius having mysteriously escaped, only to find out that a character had some magical object which we'd never heard of, and went back in time and saved the day. That's "cheating" -- or too much deus ex machina (or hand of author, instead).

Anyway, my point is that I don't think we'll find the answers to what already went on at the end of HBP through various potions, spells, etc. that we've never had described to us. Therefore, the best theories, in my opinion, will depend on previously described magical devices.

But that doesn't mean that something remarkably unusual didn't happen. I just think that whatever happened didn't use new magic to which we've not been introduced. However, there was probably magic done that we don't fully understand yet. So, for instance, if DoLD was somewhere used, that would be a potion that we've had described to us in a fair amount of detail without our really knowing how it works. There could also be other magical spells or devices that we've been introduced to, but are used in ways we haven't been shown in the books.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Horcrux - Aug 24, 2006 1:00 pm (#130 of 1629)

I wouldn't necessarily call it cheating. After all, she gave us clues that something like a timeturner could exist before she introduced it. I, like most everyone else like the stoppered death theory though cannot help being skeptical of it. There are a few things that are troubling me. One is the fact that even if dumbledore asked snape to unstopper his death, I think that snape would have a hard time ending his life. dunno though.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


phuze - Sep 17, 2006 10:03 am (#131 of 1629)

My guess at some of what happened - first post, so be gentle

Some of this was alluded to in the "Was the death real" thread, but in light of Jo's revelation I wanted to bring it up here.

I think that Dumbledore knew he was done for - all of the description of him growing weaker and weaker combined with the knowledge that he is certainly dead makes it very likely that he knew. It has already been noted that the potion wasn't meant to kill "immediately" but I think the phrasing shows that ultimately death was the goal of the potion.

It was interesting to me that Dumbledore spoke specifically about legilimency to Draco. Then, when Snape bursts through the door and Dumbledore calls his name:

Snape said nothing, but walked forward and pushed Malfoy out of the way...

...snip...

...Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the lines of his face.

My theory is that this mirrors the scene in Order of the Phoenix where Harry tries to communicate with Snape wordlessly.

The fact that Snape gazed "for a moment" and then Dumbledore spoke again strongly indicates that a message was passed (and matches Harry's actions in Umbridge's office). I think the message was instructions to kill or give the appearance of killing Dumbledore and then go full time to be an insider with Voldemort. Looked at this way, Snape's revulsion and hatred was at having to kill a good person and leave Hogwarts as well as knowing what people everywhere would think of him. The main debate would be what the message was that Dumbledore communicated - I think it would be hard to argue that there was no communication. In that case, one has to imagine what message would fit the facts.

Just my 2 knuts,

phuze

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Sep 18, 2006 8:48 am (#132 of 1629)
Edited Sep 18, 2006 9:49 am

phuze,

Welcome!

That's a good comparison and one I hadn't seen brought up before. We do see Harry (who of course wouldn't be anywhere nearly as good an communicating nonverbally as DD), passing information to Snape directly through eye-to-eye communication in OOTP.

And you're right, the fact that both are strong legilimens or occlumens would make it almost a given that DD would be communicating this way with Snape at such a time -- regardless of Snape's loyalties. DD, after all, trusted him, so he would be communicating this way to him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Steve Newton - Sep 18, 2006 9:18 am (#133 of 1629)

I got the impression that Harry did not pass information to Snape by eye contact. I think that Dumbledore says the Snape figured out the situation from what Harry said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


phuze - Sep 18, 2006 7:12 pm (#134 of 1629)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Harry was successful in communicating with Snape via legilimency in that part of OP. Mainly I was trying to point out how similar the situation was - in both cases someone had reason to communicate with Snape without others knowing what it was about.

In essence, I think that Dumbledore was more effective at communicating with Snape than Harry was and that it will probably be revealed in book 7 (Harry Potter and the NY Hotel Shower). I think it adds to the idea that there was a lot more going on on top of the tower than a surface view or read would reveal.

-- phuze

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mattew Bates - Sep 19, 2006 11:46 am (#135 of 1629)

What if Dumbledore was dying as a result of the horcrux hiding potion? What if the potion had some bizarre effect, like bringing memories to the surface of the mind so they could be forcibly taken as pensieve memories, maybe even after death? If this is the case, then Snape had to kill Dumbledore to keep his recent off-campus excursions secret from Voldemort...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mezzanine - Sep 20, 2006 7:57 am (#136 of 1629)

What if the potion had some bizarre effect, like bringing memories to the surface of the mind so they could be forcibly taken as pensieve memories, maybe even after death? If this is the case, then Snape had to kill Dumbledore to keep his recent off-campus excursions secret from Voldemort...

Good idea. I was thinking along the same lines about that potion, somehow providing a direct connection between Dumbledore and Voldemort, so that the latter could legilimens the first and find out about the Horcux hunt and other vital info.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Snortimer - Sep 26, 2006 6:47 am (#137 of 1629)

By the way, it seemed clear to me from the first time I read that that the "stopper" in "stopper death" was not a strange form of "stop" but rather the stopper on a potion bottle. And, therefore, that the reference is not to a potion that will "stop" death but rather a death-causing potion that can be put into a bottle and then "stoppered".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Sep 26, 2006 12:02 pm (#138 of 1629)

Snortimer, that's a wonderful bit of insight there. I really like that.

I haven't had a chance to get caught up on this thread, so please forgive me if this has been brought up before, but I'm wondering if anyone thinks the potion Dumbledore drank was killing him slowly, and he knew it, hence the way he was pleading with Snape? He did say, afterall, that Voldemort wouldn't want the person who drank it to be killed right away.....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Sep 26, 2006 6:56 pm (#139 of 1629)

Remember that this may not be Voldemorts potion. RAB got to the locket first and drank a green liquid. Did RAB replace the green liquid with the same green liquid, or just another green liquid, or did RAB put a liquid in that he knew would kill Voldemort, assuming that Voldemort would be the one coming back?

Dumbledore could be drinking something entirely different then what was originally put in the basin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mattew Bates - Sep 27, 2006 9:49 am (#140 of 1629)

I'd speculated on the "Why did Dumbledore have James's cloak?" thread that perhaps the potion forced memories to the front of the mind where they could be legellimnesed or forcibly extracted (perhaps even after death). If Dumbledore had been left in that state, then perhaps they ran the risk of Voldey finding out about the Horcrux Hunt.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Vulture - Oct 3, 2006 8:46 am (#141 of 1629)
Edited Oct 3, 2006 10:30 am

Harry, on the train in HBP, thought DD could have retrieved his wand with nonverbal and wandless magic, but forgets this on the Tower. (wynnleaf - Aug 9, 2006 9:54 am, thread introduction)

Sorry if this is being ultra-nitpicky: the exact sentence (in Ch. 8, Book 6) is "Then he remembered that some wizards, like Dumbledore, could perform spells without speaking, so he tried to Summon his wand, which had fallen out of his hand, by saying the words Accio wand! over and over again in his head, but nothing happened."

The reason I quote it is because what Harry remembers about wizards like Dumbledore only concerns non-verbal spells, not wandless ones. Yes, he attempts wandless magic _ well, given that he's Petrified, invisible, and facing a journey all the way back to London in that state, anything is worth a try, isn't it ?

But apart from the simple fact that Harry attempts it, this doesn't really tell us anything about wandless magic. I admit that I find it hard to get used to the notion that a really powerful wizard couldn't cope without a wand, but it's not JKR's canon that has given me (and others) that feeling _ it's the prevailing image of wizards in other fantasy stories. In JKR's books, however, the emphasis on the Expelliarmus spell suggests a higher-than-elsewhere importance for wands.

By the way, I also put this post on the new thread about Wands, on Vulture, "Wands" #1, 3 Oct 2006 10:06 am

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Aug 25, 2006 5:34 pm (#142 of 1629)
Edited by S.E. Jones Oct 3, 2006 11:55 am

wynnleaf- great thread. Like you I was firmly in the DD is alive camp based on all the oddities. Jo's answer to the 9 year old was so strange given she later says DD is definitely dead.

A few thoughts:

I had always thought the stoppered death meant bottling a killing potion, too. The idea of a potion that could stop death is too "one size fits all" for me and a bit of a cheat. I also agree with the folks who said it seems more likely that a curse would have a counter curse (like Sectumsempra), not a potion.

Along that same line, stoppering death at DD's hand, DD's hand looks dead, but isn't! He uses it throughout HBP, and it is with this supposedly dead hand that he finds LV's magical doorway into the cave. Harry mentions DD touching and searching tha cave wall with his blackened finger tips.

Hmmm...something that looks dead but isn't....

As for the potion in the cave. I don't think RAB replaced it or that is has Draught of Living Death in it. It seems to have be designed to protect the horcrux by:

1) Preventing the drinker from drinking it all

2) Weakening said drinker if he did

3) Making the drinker extremely thirsty

Number 3 forced the drinking of the lake water, and alerted the Inferi. If Draught of Living Death was in the basin, LV risked the drinker taking the locket, but passing out before drinking the lake water. The drinker would remain on the island with the locket unprotected.

Along the same line, I think the basin would have magically refilled if the horcrux, or the fake locket, were still in the basin. If a wizard managed to drink all the potion, then went for water and was dragged into the lake, once again the horcrux would be left unprotected unless the basin magically refills. So, I think the potion DD drank was LV's brew, free refills.

On Draught of Living Death, I do still like the idea that the lake was Draught of Living Death. It fits the need to keep the pilfering wizard 'alive' for questioning by LV. It also matches all the references to DD appearing to be on the verge of nodding off. DD didn't actually consume much lake water as Harry spilled it on his face. So a drop or two might take some time to work.

Do the effects of Draught of Living Death count for dead? The question then for me would be, would Jo really tell us to get on with our mourning if DD is not properly dead.

Still so many questions...

Just a few humble thoughts...

Vulture...Am rereading HBP, and at the same time OOTP to my son, and just finished reading GOF to him. I think I remember in one of them that someone did do magic without a wand...was it Accio wand? Does anyone else remember this?

-I assume that the abbreviation DoLD used in this post meant Draught of Living Death. If not, please email me and I will correct my edits. Please try to limit your abbreviations to those listed in the 'Commonly Used Abbreviatons' thread so that other members can understand what is written.- SE Jones

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 3, 2006 10:19 am (#143 of 1629)

Stopper death could mean Snape knew about the effects of unicorns blood which would not be far from the abilities of the potions teacher of Hogwarts, and he was just showing off to the new first years.

Also the whereabouts of the Cave might have been found by anyone, but I think only a few could have removed the liquid through the barrier anyway. Like on the tower it is said that maybe only those with the Dark Mark can pass it. So the liquid need not refill itself. R.A.B. could have known the effects of the liquid, how to remove it, and make it cause he was a DE and LV would have taught some things to his "minions" to further his own cause and help them hide things from prying eyes to know they were De's. The diary couldn't be done in this way cause the liquid would affect the paper which Lucius didn't want to do so he framed Ginny with it.

R.A.B. "discovered his secret" so maybe he was the only one and not DE's then again. But that would raise how much he knew. Just about the Horcruxes, all of their identities and locations, even how to evade their defenses.

Meaning R.A.B. probably didn't need to drink the liquid same as maybe LV didn't need to cause he knew a way around it to switch lockets. OR if he did drink and replace it could me he knew he was going to be dead soon since the liquid was a deadly substance and why he wanted to get out and destroy the locket ASAP cause he already didn't have long to live which DD realized soon after starting to drink the liquid himself.

Then DD drank what was left by LV all along or a duplicate made by R.A.B. Again him being one of few that would know a way to get around the barrier.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 3, 2006 10:21 am (#144 of 1629)

T Vrana,

Very nice to see you around!

would Jo really tell us to get on with our mourning if DD is not properly dead.

That's a good point. Personally -- and this is purely guesswork -- I think that DD is not properly dead, but he will be fairly shortly into our seeing him again. It's okay to start the grieving process, even if the victim isn't completely dead yet. I think JKR maybe had planned reviving him and his living longer into book 7, but decided against it. Just my guess of course.

On wandless magic. Some examples (and I have no books available), include Snape's countercurse on the broom in PS/SS. Quirrells curse on the broom in PS/SS. Apparition is apparently wandless as Harry did it as a child to get on top of the school building. When Snape binds Lupin in POA, he simply clicked his fingers and the ends of the cords flew into his hands (wandless and nonverbal). When DD flew to the tower in HBP, he removed the enchantments so they could get into Hogwarts and no mention is made of his use of a wand. There are other examples, but I'm just doing this off the top of my head.

But my primary point about Harry on the train is not so much what Harry thought or didn't think, but what JKR was thinking. I doubt sincerely that JKR wrote about Harry's assumption that DD could do a nonverbal accio, and relate it to accioing his own wand, without being quite aware that she was going to put DD in just such a position at the end of the book -- wandless. So this was a bit of foreshadowing. The question is, does it foreshadow simply the loss of DD's wand? Or does it foreshadow a DD who was able to do both wandless and nonverbal magic to get his wand, but chose to not retrieve it?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 3, 2006 11:49 am (#145 of 1629)
Edited by S.E. Jones Oct 3, 2006 1:53 pm

Hi, Wynnleaf

Nice to be back.

I think in all those examples (except Harry) the users had their wands on their person, but weren't pointing them. Different, I think, than not having the wand at all.

About the potion killing DD and RAB. I think DD was right that LV would have wanted to question any wizard who managed to get to a horcrux. Since it seems that LV doesn't know when a horcrux is found and does not check on his, it would follow, if DD is right, that the potion would not kill at all, not immediately, in 3 hours or three years. The inferi (and, possibly the Draught of Living Death lake water) were there to keep the wizard there until LV comes around.

Have to decide why the ring curse was so 'deadly' if LV wanted the wizard alive. Perhaps it wasn't just DD's powers and Snape's ability tha kept DD around. Perhaps that curse was also menat to maim and keep around.

Just a thought..

-I assume that the abbreviation DoLD used in this post meant Draught of Living Death. If not, please email me and I will correct my edits. Please try to limit your abbreviations to those listed in the 'Commonly Used Abbreviatons' thread so that other members can understand what is written.- SE Jones

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 3, 2006 12:10 pm (#146 of 1629)

I thought the ring became deadly because Dumbledore tried to destroy it. I never thought it was deadly to anyone who touched it. That's just my take though.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 3, 2006 12:38 pm (#147 of 1629)
Edited Oct 3, 2006 2:24 pm

Juliebug- You could be right, looking back DD does mention destroying the horcrux and the injury together. And the stone is cracked when Harry sees it. Perhaps the enchantments protecting the ring were not as strong because it was LV's first...

shadzar- About RAB knowing the potion and LV sharing his secrets, I disagree. I don't think LV trusted any of his DEs with his horcruxes or anything related to them. RAB I think said he figured it out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 3, 2006 12:56 pm (#148 of 1629)
Edited Oct 3, 2006 1:58 pm

T Vrana, please review my edits to your last few posts. Please try to limit your abbreviations to those listed in the 'Commonly Used Abbreviations' thread or put, in every post you'll use the abbrevation, what it means. We have members who do not speak English as a primary language, who use translator programs to read what is written on the forums, and who, therefore, may not understand many abbreviations unless the abbreviation is listed with the word it is abbreviating somewhere for reference. Thank you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 3, 2006 5:31 pm (#149 of 1629)
Edited Oct 3, 2006 6:56 pm

Found it! It wasn't accio wand, but it was magic without holding a wand. When Harry is attacked by dementors in the alley near Privet Drive, he drops his wand. In his desperation to find it in the dark he tries lumos, and it works. The wand was only a short distance away, but it is still magic without a wand. I would have to think a wizard as powerful as DD could have accio'd his wand if he really wanted to, but saving himself wasn't his priority. For me it is this belief, that DD could have retrieved his wand if he so desired, that makes DD's words to Malfoy that much more powerful: (paraphrasing)

No, Draco, it is my mercy that counts, now, not yours..

SE Jones- No problem. I'd used DoLD for months for Draught of Living Death, so I was surprised to find it not on the list...so much shorter to say DoLD...terrible typing skills...any chance it can be added...lots of others using it as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 4, 2006 6:22 am (#150 of 1629)

T Vrana - "...but it is still magic without a wand."

I am really torn about this one. To me, wandless magic is when a wizard can perform a spell without a wand in sight. But, when Harry did Lumos, his hand was very close to his wand and the spell was self contained. In other words, no spell emitted from the wand - it did not send a spell out to affect something or someone nearby - the Lumos simply caused the wand itself to light up. I know this is a very minute difference, but it is a difference. We have seen a couple of instances in the books when magic was done without a wand - Tom, the Leaky Cauldron barman, lights a fire by only waving his hand, and we know Dumbledore can change the decorations in the Great Hall with a wave of his hand. I just don't think we have seen Harry do true wandless magic.

3.Why Jo originally would not say Dumbledore is dead and now after written a few chapters into book 7 finally announces that he is dead.

I like your thinking. Maybe Dumbledore isn't dead yet but soon will be. Jo said the readers should start the grieving process, but that doesn't neccessarily mean Dumbledore is dead NOW, possibly that he will be soon though and that's why we should start mourning now. She also was really evasive about responding the question of if Dumbledore was included in the two major characters who would die.

what do you guys think?

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 151 to 175

Post  Lady Arabella on Mon May 16, 2011 8:36 pm

T Vrana - Oct 4, 2006 6:54 am (#151 of 1629)

Choices- I agree and should have been more specific. Harry, at 16, a far less powerful and accomplished wizard than DD, was able to light his wand without touching it, though, I admit he was very close to it. In the same way, I think DD, the most powerful and gifted wizard of his time, could have accio'd his wand from the base of the tower to the top. Same basic idea of getting the wand to do something, not perform other magic with the aid of a wand.

I was really only thinking of DD's ability to retrieve his wand and defend himself. I think he could have and chose not to.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Vulture - Oct 4, 2006 7:01 am (#152 of 1629)
Edited Oct 4, 2006 8:12 am

Vulture...Am rereading HBP, and at the same time OOTP to my son, and just finished reading GOF to him. I think I remember in one of them that someone did do magic without a wand...was it Accio wand? Does anyone else remember this? (T Vrana - Oct 3, 2006 9:50 am (#142)

Hi, there, T Vrana, haven't heard from you for a while. Have a look at my Introduction page (click on Vulture ) _ I think you'll be most amused !! Try the test yourself too !!

On the wandless magic _ sorry, can't remember. I recall Harry doing Accio Firebolt! and an Accio on the Triwizard Cup to escape Voldemort, but he used his wand for both of those. But anyway _ I've just seen from #149 that you've found it.

On Dumbledore and wandless magic, see my comments on #141, especially about Expelliarmus.

I'd also be pleased if all of ye would copy any comments about wands into my new thread on Wands in general (click on link); thanks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Steve Newton - Oct 4, 2006 8:02 am (#153 of 1629)
Edited Oct 4, 2006 9:06 am

Tom, the Leaky Cauldron barman, lights a fire by only waving his hand

Choices, this strikes me as interesting. We suspect that Aberforth is the barman at, can't remember the name of the bar. And is possibly a powerful wizard. It occurs to me from your example that perhaps Tom is also more than he seems.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 4, 2006 8:05 am (#154 of 1629)

The bar is The Hog's Head and I agree, Aberforth probably is much more than he seems. Just about everyone in these books are.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 4, 2006 8:37 am (#155 of 1629)

Vulture-

Hi! Took a break for a while, but am back. Good to see you're still here!

Interesting intro page!?!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Ellen Jones - Oct 4, 2006 6:15 pm (#156 of 1629)

Regarding wandless magic: The very first time we ever see Harry using magic is in PS/SS when he unwittingly removes the glass from the snake's cage. Not only does he not have his wand with him, he doesn't even own a wand at this point. For me that is sufficient evidence that wandless magic is indeed possible, even more so by an accomplished wizard.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 4, 2006 6:56 pm (#157 of 1629)

Shrinking the puffball sweater so he would not have to wear it, and growing back his hair after Petunia chopped it off, were both examples of wandless magic, too, as I see it. Not only did he not have a wand, he didn't know they existed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 4, 2006 8:08 pm (#158 of 1629)

Tom Riddle as a boy could control his magic enough without a wand to cause a few controlled effects. So, yes, it's possible. But Rowling has never shown us Dumbledore-- or any other wizard-- go on a wandless spell casting spree to demonstrate the extent of what is possible.

What I find really odd about the Tower scene isn't that Dumbledore didn't Accio his wand, but that he ever lost it in the first place. When Draco ran up the stairs and burst through the door, Dumbledore could have Petrified him. Instead, he inexplicably freezes Harry instead, and falls victim to a Disarming Charm. Whatever for? I can only conclude that Dumbledore wanted to give Draco his chance at murder. But it just seems really odd and I can't get it to add up to make sense.

If Draco murders Dumbledore, it saves Snape from that stupid Unbreakable Vow he made. But does that add up to a good enough motive for Dumbledore's actions?

I've heard a lot of speculation that Dumbledore was already dying, either from that Mean Green Cave Liquid, or the never-fully-explained blackened hand. If he was dying, that might tip his decision to die to save Snape. Otherwise, I really can't see Snape as more important to the Wizarding World than Dumbledore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Starling - Oct 5, 2006 1:27 am (#159 of 1629)

I can only conclude that Dumbledore wanted to give Draco his chance at murder.

My conclusion is that Harry would have been killed if Dumbledore hadn't petrified him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 5, 2006 1:37 am (#160 of 1629)

Mrs Brisbee --If he was dying, that might tip his decision to die to save Snape. Otherwise, I really can't see Snape as more important to the Wizarding World than Dumbledore.--

I could see Dumbledore thinking that the wizarding world has Harry to carry one now (the "Chosen One" and all that) but that he might be the only one to give Snape and Draco a chance, the only one to save them. I definitely think Dumbledore would give his life for both of them, or for anyone who's life he would think was cut too short. Him getting disarmed gave him a chance to talk to Draco too, which kept Draco from becoming a killer, from splitting his own, very young soul. Maybe he hoped Harry would witness this scene and learn a little more about compassion from it (it is love afterall that has saved Harry in the past and will probably save him in the future), and if Dumbledore did give his life for Draco and Snape, he did so out of love.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 5, 2006 4:56 am (#161 of 1629)

Mrs Brisbee-

I put out a theory over a year ago that the events on the tower were far more planned that they may appear, that DD knew, either from his own snooping or Snape's, more than he let on. It was pretty lengthy, but here are a few of the high points:

1) It seemed odd to me that DD, if he did not know what was going on in the castle, would send Harry from the tallest tower to Snape's dungeon, rather than send a patronus message. I think he wanted Harry off the tower long enough to offer Malfoy a chance to discover he's not a killer, and then to go into hiding. By then Harry would be back with Snape. He was counting on the Order to hold off the intruders. The one catch, Fenrir came, Malfoy was surprised, so was DD. The rest of the Death Eaters were pretty lame and easily handled. Fenrir, I think, complicated matters.

2) DD say to Malfoy "And as you say, right under my nose." I don't read this as an admission on DD"s part(Yes, you are clever and pulled this off right under my nose, but as a statement that Draco misses entirely (Did you really think you could skulk around my castle all year, injuring students and I wouldn't do a little checking around?) I ma reminded of DD, Harry and the Mirror of Erised. DD doesn't need a cloak to be invisible and knows more than he reveals about what happens in his castle.

3) Snape is dressed and ready in the middle of the night.

4) Malfoy says his plan to lure DD to the tower worked. DD answers "Yes, and no". Perhaps, 'yes, I'm here, but, no, not as part of your plan, but part of my own.'

5) Though the death mark is above the tower, DD really still wants Snape, why not go in the entrance hall which is much closer?

There's more, but not enough time. Can pursue this line if there is more interest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Vulture - Oct 5, 2006 5:31 am (#162 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 7:13 am

What I find really odd about the Tower scene isn't that Dumbledore didn't Accio his wand, but that he ever lost it in the first place. When Draco ran up the stairs and burst through the door, Dumbledore could have Petrified him. Instead, he inexplicably freezes Harry instead, and falls victim to a Disarming Charm. Whatever for? I can only conclude that Dumbledore wanted to give Draco his chance at murder. But it just seems really odd and I can't get it to add up to make sense. (Mrs Brisbee - Oct 4, 2006 9:08 pm (#158)

Very good point. Instead of freezing Harry, who had sworn to obey all orders, he could have ordered him not to interfere, and disarmed Draco. Then he could have had cosy chats to his heart's content. While giving Draco the choice about murder may be a lovely moral idea, I really cannot buy the notion that, for its sake, Dumbledore would throw away his own life and wider responsibility, risk Harry's life and the lives of all those in the castle, turn a trusted lieutenant (Snape) into a hunted fugitive, and hand Voldemort a major victory. If Book 7 turns around and tells us that it was all about helping Draco's personal reformation, I will denounce it from the rooftops as utter rubbish.

Besides, I can't see why Dumbledore would have expected Draco to be first on to the Tower. Also, why freeze Harry (and risk his life), when the presence of the second broom could expose his presence anyway ?

I also have trouble with the widely-held belief that everything, or almost everything, which happened that evening had been planned by Dumbledore to the last detail. For example, does that include Snape's bopping Flitwick on the head ? Does it include the Dark Mark ? _ how could he have known what Malfoy and the Death Eaters would decide to do, and where they would decide to put it ?

What exactly was Dumbledore thinking, and expecting, when he ordered Harry to fetch Snape, "tell him what has happened, and bring him to me. Do nothing else, speak to nobody else, and do not remove your Cloak" ? Doesn't such an order show that Dumbledore did not expect that barrier on the steps to the Tower, through which nobody but Death Eaters could pass ? Doesn't it show that, whatever he was expecting, it was not the events as they turned out ?

Another reason I don't believe that the evening went as Dumbledore expected is that, despite a lot of exciting talk, he simply has not given Harry the remotest clue how he is to (a) find the remaining Horcruxes, and (b) if he does find and destroy them, how he is supposed to get at Voldemort. I've read a lot of rubbish since Book 6 came out about how Harry has learned everything he needs to know, and how the First Commandment of fantasy writing is that Ye Olde Wise Wizarde must get it in the neck to Make Way For The Hero. Why MUST he ? Where DO these people get this stuff ? (Unfortunately, it appears that JKR is playing along with it, whatever her own intentions are.) I can only conclude that _ as with so many other things _ Star Wars has a lot to answer for.

But whatever about Ye Olde Wise Wizarde going to the Three Broomsticks In The Sky, the plain fact is that Harry has not learned everything he needs to know. Cut away all the waffle, both in Book 6 and about it, and the fact remains that, with Dumbledore gone, as things stand, Harry's chances against Voldemort are roughly those of a three-legged hedgehog with a hangover on a five-lane motorway in rush-hour.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Starling - Oct 5, 2006 5:33 am (#163 of 1629)

I agree that Dumbledore knew about Malfoy. Definitely. The way he reacted to Harry's accusations seemed to imply "back off boy, I know what's going on."

3) Snape is dressed and ready in the middle of the night.

It wasn't that late. I can see Snape as a night-owl, and Madam Rosmerta was only just getting ready for bed.

I don't understand why they had to go to where the Death Mark came from either, unless Dumbledore knew there would be a barrier leading up to it, meaning he wouldn't be able to get there (i.e. where the Death Eaters were) from anywhere else.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 7:09 am (#164 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 8:10 am

I have always thought that DD knew that the tower was going to be where events played out. I also think Snape knew. I think the original plan was that DD would send Harry to get Snape (as T Vrana point out). But the timing of events over took them and messed up the plan. So Dumbledore started stalling on the tower, encouraging a long chat with Draco hoping that Snape would find out through some other way that it was time to run for the tower.

As it turned out, Flitwick went to get Snape, who had been waiting for a signal from DD (probably in the form of Harry). He was waiting in his office and as soon as Flitwick got there, he took off for the tower. Remember that if Snape is loyal, it is imperative that he get to DD and Draco -- no where else. He goes directly to the tower. Neither Flitwick nor anyone else knew that DD was on the tower, or that Draco was up there. Yet Snape went there directly. Tonks said she saw him and he was there and then he wasn't. In other words, he didn't even stop, just went directly up to the tower.

Based on those things, plus others like T Vrana mentioned, I think DD knew what was going to happen and had planned for it. It could be that Snape, as a spy, had gotten more information from other DE's and knew some of what was planned and had told DD. But I do think DD and Snape were working from a plan that had two big glitches -- timing and Fenrir.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Vulture - Oct 5, 2006 7:48 am (#165 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 9:19 am

Hi, Wynnleaf: But when could Snape or Dumbledore have known that the action would happen on that Tower ? (Isn't there more than one tower at Hogwarts ?) Malfoy's words indicate that the details of the Dark Mark trap were decided with the other Death Eaters that evening _ in response to Rosmerta's message that Dumbledore was away but expected to return soon. When could Dumbledore, off cave-hunting with Harry, have got any message from Snape ? When could Snape have got any message about it anyway ? _ Malfoy was quite deliberately keeping him in the dark.

I admit that there is one thing that lends support to your theory _ on the Tower, the Death Eater Amycus, "whose eyes and wand were fixed on Dumbledore", addresses Snape by name the minute the latter bursts through the door. That seems to indicate that somebody among the Death Eaters intended to involve Snape, even if Malfoy didn't. But it doesn't really explain the points in my first paragraph. People are very fond of saying that Dumbledore would never risk his students or Hogwarts' security. Therefore, I see no reason to believe that Dumbledore expected Malfoy to be able to get the Death Eaters into the castle.

I can't explain exactly why Snape knew where to go. But Flitwick's news would presumably have directed him as far as the fight, and he may then have either seen the Death Eaters disappearing up the Tower steps, or seen the Order's failed efforts to pass the barrier, and realised its nature.

===================================================================

More generally (this isn't really about your last post, Wynnleaf) _ isn't a lot of people's determination to see a Big Plan by Dumbledore behind the whole Tower scene just another form of refusal to let go ? Despite one or two vehement denials of emotional attachment which I've seen, I do feel that it's no coincidence that many fans of the Big Plan were refusing point-blank to accept Dumbledore's death until JKR publicly confirmed it "to help you get past the stage of denial". I think that, for a lot of people, it's (a) terrible to have to admit that Dumbledore is dead, and (b) if they are to admit it, then his death must not be in vain, and must be something he intended. In short, it's anathema to these people that anyone could have power over Dumbledore, even for a minute.

As some dodgy politician once said, "I feel your pain". I really do. I don't like him being dead myself. But I think ye all have to deal with the possibility that Dumbledore's death was a defeat for him and the good side, and a success for Voldemort. I'm not (yet) putting it any stronger than "possibility", but I think ye should deal with it, and ye're not doing so, in my opinion.

Actually, JKR has dropped the odd little hint or two in this direction. I was very surprised to read a criticism of Dumbledore by her which implied _ very cautiously _ that Dumbledore had relied too much on intellect and failed to rely enough on others. (I can't recall the exact words.) That could possibly be a rebuke of his keeping Harry so much in the dark and not taking (or seemingly not taking) his investigations seriously.

This is all speculation, I know. But I've been thinking a lot about JKR's City Hall interview _ it left me with the feeling that JKR is battling between her writer side, which needs to keep the main secrets, and a side that is worried about how shocked the fans are going to be. When I put her words and demeanour together, they give me the feeling that fans are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off-beam with this Dumbledore-Snape death-plan stuff, and that she's a bit worried about how they're going to feel after Book 7. Hope I'm wrong, but that's my feeling.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 8:03 am (#166 of 1629)

Malfoy's words indicate that the details of the Dark Mark trap were decided with the other Death Eaters that evening _ in response to Rosmerta's message that Dumbledore was away but expected to return soon. When could Dumbledore, off cave-hunting with Harry, have got any message from Snape ? When could Snape have got any message about it anyway ? _ Malfoy was quite deliberately keeping him in the dark.

Vulture, here's my guess. Snape was in communication with DE's that knew about the plot. The plotters seemed (according to Draco's comments) to be waiting for the next time that DD left the castle. If Snape and DD knew that the plotters were just waiting for DD to leave the castle in order to put their plan into action, then DD would have known when he planned to go on the Cave expedition, that his leaving would be the catalyst for the attack to begin.

Notice that DD arranged ahead of time for Order members to be inside the castle patrolling. He brought back Lupin from his assignment with the werewolves, to be in the castle instead.

He could also have alerted Snape that it would be that night that he would go out of the castle with Harry, and that Snape should be ready for when the action started later.

DD also had a few minutes while Harry was off supposedly getting his invisibility cloak, to contact Snape and let him know that they were about to leave the castle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 5, 2006 8:18 am (#167 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 9:25 am

Lot's of great and interesting replies.

Starling: My conclusion is that Harry would have been killed if Dumbledore hadn't petrified him.

A moment earlier Dumbledore was sending Harry downstairs to fetch Snape. Then Draco runs up the stairs and bursts through the door-- alone. There is not yet any sound of battle that can be heard from below. So what changed for Dumbledore to conclude Harry's life was suddenly more in danger than it was a moment before? Nothing that I can see. Dumbledore could have frozen Draco instead, thus eliminating the obvious danger.

S.E. Jones: I could see Dumbledore thinking that the wizarding world has Harry to carry one now (the "Chosen One" and all that) but that he might be the only one to give Snape and Draco a chance, the only one to save them. I definitely think Dumbledore would give his life for both of them, or for anyone who's life he would think was cut too short. Him getting disarmed gave him a chance to talk to Draco too, which kept Draco from becoming a killer, from splitting his own, very young soul. Maybe he hoped Harry would witness this scene and learn a little more about compassion from it (it is love afterall that has saved Harry in the past and will probably save him in the future), and if Dumbledore did give his life for Draco and Snape, he did so out of love.

Dumbledore is the leader of Voldemort's opposition in wartime, and the Headmaster a school he has a duty to protect. If he is letting Draco do these terrible things-- almost murdering Ron and Katie, creating an atmosphere of terror at Hogwarts much like when the Chamber of Secrets was open, working to let Death Eaters into the school-- then whatever tactical gain Dumbledore and the Good Guys plan to get out of it has to outweigh everything that is risked and lost. You do not purposefully sacrifice your Castle to a Pawn unless it moves you closer to victory in a big way. I can see Dumbledore taking great risks as leader of the Order. But as Headmaster? That gets a little too dicey.

T Vrana:1) It seemed odd to me that DD, if he did not know what was going on in the castle, would send Harry from the tallest tower to Snape's dungeon, rather than send a patronus message. I think he wanted Harry off the tower long enough to offer Malfoy a chance to discover he's not a killer, and then to go into hiding. By then Harry would be back with Snape. He was counting on the Order to hold off the intruders. The one catch, Fenrir came, Malfoy was surprised, so was DD. The rest of the Death Eaters were pretty lame and easily handled. Fenrir, I think, complicated matters.

I don't think Dumbledore would send Harry downstairs if he knew or suspected the Castle was infested with Death Eaters. Dumbledore didn't seem to know they were there. After Harry and Dumbledore saw the Dark Mark from Hogsmeade, I think it quite possible that Dumbledore expected to run into Draco on the Tower, but when no one was there he went back to his Plan A, which was get Snape so he could do something about the Awful Green Liquid. When Draco bursts through the door, Dumbledore quickly reverts back to plan B. Which might explain why he froze Harry. He doesn't want Snape and Draco in the same place right then, because Snape would have to kill Dumbledore or drop dead if Draco appears to be swayed by Dumbledore's arguments. So Dumbledore freezes Harry to prevent him from fetching Snape, without revealing Harry's presence to Draco.

Hmm. I actually feel like that works as an explanation for why Dumbledore would freeze Harry.

Edited here to add that the lack of Patronusgram use bugs me too. McGonagall doesn't even send one to fetch Snape, instead she sends Flitwick! I'd like to know why Rowling introduced Patronusgrams if they are not going to be used when it makes sense for them to be used.

Vulture: I can only conclude that _ as with so many other things _ Star Wars has a lot to answer for

Actually, I agree with your entire post. And your tirade about Ye Olde Wise Wizarde that must get it in the neck to Make Way For The Hero was really funny. For this bit about Star Wars, I just wanted to point out that George Lucas based his characters directly on the mythological archetypes as outlined by Joseph Campbell, and the plot of Star Wars directly on the mythological hero's journey as outlined by Joseph Campbell. So Star Wars works as a modern benchmark for mythological stories, because that is what Lucas intended it to be.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Vulture - Oct 5, 2006 8:43 am (#168 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 10:10 am

Actually, I agree with your entire post. And your tirade about Ye Olde Wise Wizarde that must get it in the neck to Make Way For The Hero was really funny. For this bit about Star Wars, I just wanted to point out that George Lucas based his characters directly on the mythological archetypes as outlined by Joseph Campbell, and the plot of Star Wars directly on the mythological hero's journey as outlined by Joseph Campbell. So Star Wars works as a modern benchmark for mythological stories, because that is what Lucas intended it to be. Mrs Brisbee - Oct 5, 2006 9:18 am (#167)

Thanks, Mrs. Brisbee !! Yes, I did have a hazy idea that Star Wars was using existing mythology _ well (with my waspish attitude to it !!), for example, I thought the death of Obi-Wan, and Darth Vadar's Nazgul-Lord act were looted directly from Tolkien. It's not that I have a problem with the way Star Wars' right to map out its story. What I've a problem with is its now-widespread dominance of everything else, leading to the notion that the Old Wise Wizard Death, or moving aside for the Hero, is now a "necessary" part of the "genre" _ i.e. that there are no alternatives. My answer is _ not any genre I want to get into !!

=================================================================================

Vulture, here's my guess. Snape was in communication with DE's that knew about the plot. The plotters seemed (according to Draco's comments) to be waiting for the next time that DD left the castle. If Snape and DD knew that the plotters were just waiting for DD to leave the castle in order to put their plan into action, then DD would have known when he planned to go on the Cave expedition, that his leaving would be the catalyst for the attack to begin.

Notice that DD arranged ahead of time for Order members to be inside the castle patrolling. He brought back Lupin from his assignment with the werewolves, to be in the castle instead. (wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 9:03 am (#166)

Good guess, Wynnleaf. But doesn't this rather go against Dumbledore's reaction to Harry when the latter tries to tell him about what Trelawney heard in the Room Of Requirement ? Dumbledore is indignant at any hint that he doesn't take his students' safety seriously. Yet, as we see, the Order were on the ropes even with the help of non-Order wizards like Flitwick, and Harry's friends, in the battle that resulted. In short, they sorely needed Dumbledore's full combat strength.

Surely, if Dumbledore knew of the plot, he would have left the Cave-hunt to another night, made a fake trip out of the castle, and returned in time to trap the Death Eaters, much as he did at the Ministry in Book 5 ? Did he not realise that he might be weakened by what the Cave had in store ? In any case, if he knew of Malfoy's plot, wasn't it folly to combine the two projects into one night ?

OK, I know the Vow complicates things _ perhaps, for Snape's sake, he couldn't put Draco in a situation where he (Draco) was facing failure. But even so, I can't see how running off to the Cave and weakening himself helps. If he knew the plot, it would have made more sense to organise a counter-trap that let Malfoy escape (to save Snape's Vow).

My point is, Dumbledore's actions that evening do indicate that he had plans of his own _ but largely to do with the Horcrux, not Malfoy. They don't indicate to me that he expected what the Death Eaters did, chapter and verse, although he clearly knew something about Malfoy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 5, 2006 8:49 am (#169 of 1629)

IS it possible JKR comments in New York are because someone got to close to the truth on a website about what she was planning and she just changed how to handle it and say he was dead dead, but before then she was planning something else?

OR maybe even the AK used by Snape, nor the liquid, nor the hand is what killed him but the fall from the tower. So Snape caused his death from the excess power of the spell, but not the spells intent itself.

So DD had planned to get AK by Snape, and thought he could fake his death until he fell from the tower and ruined his feint.

I am sure DD was dragging it out with Draco to prevent him from performing the spell himself and at the same time convert Draco. IF he did plan to die then how could he protect Draco and his mother from LV once he was dead?

Was Snape always "dressed" or was he informed by Draco or DD, or both; to be ready that night?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 5, 2006 8:50 am (#170 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 10:02 am

Mrs. Brisbee, Dumbledore is the leader of Voldemort's opposition in wartime, and the Headmaster a school he has a duty to protect. If he is letting Draco do these terrible things-- almost murdering Ron and Katie, creating an atmosphere of terror at Hogwarts much like when the Chamber of Secrets was open, working to let Death Eaters into the school-- then whatever tactical gain Dumbledore and the Good Guys plan to get out of it has to outweigh everything that is risked and lost. You do not purposefully sacrifice your Castle to a Pawn unless it moves you closer to victory in a big way. I can see Dumbledore taking great risks as leader of the Order. But as Headmaster? That gets a little too dicey.

But DD has always taken risks. At the end of Book One we learn that DD had known about Quirell all along.

In HBP DD explains he didn't stop Draco himself for fear he would be killed. He did not consider Malfoy a pawn, but rather an innocent, and one of his students, just as worthy of protection as his other students.

DD did move the order inside. Why on this particular night? When we look at the list of DEs who were let in, and not a suprise, they are a pretty useless lot:

Big Blonde just shot off jinxes everywhere

Amyscus and Alecto are really scraping the bottom of the barrel

We don't hear much about 'the brutal faced one' except Harry stuns him

So, if DD did know, and he knew he was the target, I can see him being fairly comfortable that his Order could handle that lot. The big surprise, to Malfoy and therefore DD, was Fenrir.

Just a possibility...

Not using the patronusgram is odd. Is Flitwick part of the Order, or did he just help out as a teacher that night? Why didn't McGonagol send a message?

Vulture- It really isn't a matter of not being able to let go, for me. And I don't have a problem with DD being bested or dead. I do have a problem if DD was wrong about Snape for many reasons. Don't have time to go into them now, but will later.

Biggest objection, would Jo really give Malfoy the last word on DD, something about a stupid old man who was losing it?

No problem him being bested, but it will be a real shame if he goes from most powerful wizard etc. to stupid old man to accomplish it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Vulture - Oct 5, 2006 9:17 am (#171 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 10:25 am

So, if DD did know, and he knew he was the target, I can see him being fairly comfortable that his Order could handle that lot. The big surprise, to Malfoy and therefore DD, was Fenrir. (T Vrana[/B] - Oct 5, 2006 9:50 am (#170)

But isn't that very irresponsible ? How could he be sure that Death Eaters whom Malfoy didn't expect wouldn't tag along at the last minute ? What if Aunty Bellatrix had trotted along for a spot of Neville-hunting ?!! Possibly with some pals who weren't as nice as Fenrir ?!! I mean, as I said, the Order were on the ropes as it was. Can we really say that Dumbledore would take this sort of risk ? Especially as he told the Order nothing _ they weren't expecting the attack.

Biggest objection, would Jo really give Malfoy the last word on DD, something about a stupid old man who was losing it? (T Vrana- Oct 5, 2006 9:50 am (#170)

Well, I don't think that he's a stupid old man, but (you're not going to like this) _ when that Death Eater shouted at him about "always the same, weren't you, Dumby, talking and doing nothing, nothing; I don't know why the Dark Lord is bothering to kill yeh !!" , it was, for me, like sudden rain on a sleeper's face. Because, to tell the truth, those words aren't as inaccurate as I wish they were.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 5, 2006 9:43 am (#172 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 11:24 am

You're right, I don't like it. DD certainly has not been doing nothing. He can't kill LV for good until all the horcruxes are found. So he's devoted his time to finding them and preparing Harry to finish the job, along with his duties as Headmaster, Supreme Mugwump etc.

That Amyscus doesn't get why LV wants DD gone is no big surprise.

If DD were to 'kill' LV now, he would only return, perhaps when DD is gone, perhaps when Harry is gone. DD wants LV gone for good and he sees Harry as his best hope this will happen.

edit: Not that DD could just go out and find LV and kill him. Bit more difficult than that, I think...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Starling - Oct 5, 2006 10:12 am (#173 of 1629)

Who is the big blond? He gets mentioned quite a lot in that fight, but he doesn't get a name, I wonder why. Will he turn up later? Is he somebody we would recognise, but Harry & Co wouldn't/don't?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 10:45 am (#174 of 1629)

But isn't that very irresponsible ? How could he be sure that Death Eaters whom Malfoy didn't expect wouldn't tag along at the last minute ? What if Aunty Bellatrix had trotted along for a spot of Neville-hunting ?!! Possibly with some pals who weren't as nice as Fenrir ?!! I mean, as I said, the Order were on the ropes as it was. Can we really say that Dumbledore would take this sort of risk ? Especially as he told the Order nothing _ they weren't expecting the attack.

Those are valid questions, but we could ask similar ones about what DD chooses to do in every one of the books. DD takes a lot of risks that somehow work out in the end. Of course, Vulture, you might not think DD's decisions in HBP worked out, but my guess is that JKR will show that they did.

I often wonder if JKR will give us some sort of reason behind DD always managing to take such risks and them come out okay, or if we'll always be left with questions like "did he know ahead of time that it would all work out?" "had he been in the future?" or "was he just lucky?" and other speculations to try and explain DD's very risky choices. But I still do think much of what happened that night was expected by DD and planned for, the fact that it was all a huge risk notwithstanding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 5, 2006 11:36 am (#175 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 1:23 pm

Wynnleaf- I guess I would question whether it ALL works out. Quirrel died, Cedric died, Sirius died, lots of folks dying now.

If DD had been in the future, you would hope he would have stepped in at some point. Certainly his tribute to Cedric was rather moving. If DD knew that was coming and did not warn him in any way, well, epitome of goodness may have to be removed from his many titles.

I prefer to think that DD takes calculated risks and tends to come out ok because he is a brilliant wizard, who is a little nuts, as I think Ron put it, and puts his trust in the right people. I also think he let Harry take so many risks to prepare him for his ultimate battle.

I agree, of course, that the tower events seemed to be loosely planned.

What else does DD mean by "Well, yes....and no" when Malfoy takes credit for getting DD to the tower?

edit- The risk taking and the development of the hero through trials by fire go with the genre. Who would ever have thought to let a hobbit take the ring of power to Mordor. What was Gandalf thinking!! He risked all of Middle Earth, on a hobbit!

Would we be reading, enjoying and discussing these books if there were no risk? We need, I think, to remember this isn't real life.

Not all this was a response to you, Wynnleaf. Latter part more to those questioning DD's taking risks.
Third, if Snape is a loyal Death Eater why was the Unbreakable Vow necessary and why involve Draco at all? It seems unnecessary because were Severus Snape a loyal Death Eater whose devotion matched that of Bellatrix I am certain that Severus was quite capable of killing Dumbledore and making his escape without aid.


Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 176 to 200

Post  Lady Arabella on Mon May 16, 2011 8:51 pm


haymoni - Oct 5, 2006 12:02 pm (#176 of 1629)

Starling - my big theory (which I'm sure everyone is sick of by now) is that the big, blonde guy is Ludo Bagman's brother Otto.

He was the guy that Arthur bailed out - something with a lawn mower. If he was Muggle-baiting and Arthur bailed him out, that could have caused Ludo to give Arthur such a lavish gift - all those tickets in the Top Box.

Ludo says that he didn't know that he was passing info on. Perhaps he WASN'T - perhaps it was Otto that was sending the info that he got from his nitwit brother.

Wouldn't it be great to be right about SOMETHING in these books???

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 5, 2006 12:24 pm (#177 of 1629)

haymoni, I've never heard your theory before, and I think it's pretty neat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Starling - Oct 5, 2006 12:27 pm (#178 of 1629)

Blond (blonde is female, I'm a stickler for proppur grammer ).

Oooh yes, Otto! Hadn't thought of him! That's a very clever theory, haymoni.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 5, 2006 4:45 pm (#179 of 1629)

An enormous blond wizard - I like the Otto theory too, but Ludo is not so big, so it makes me wonder who this enormous wizard is? Could he be part-giant like Hagrid?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 5, 2006 4:54 pm (#180 of 1629)

I think the big blond present at Dumbledore's death is a part giant, and Hagrid will possibly be the one to take him down.

The one thing about what happened on the tower that irritates me more than any other is how Harry lost control of his emotions and got so stupid. Snape is right about that. He THREW AWAY the invisibility cloak! It would be so much easier to follow/fight/hex Death Eaters if they couldn't see you!

That cloak is a lot of trouble to me, plotwise.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 5, 2006 5:26 pm (#181 of 1629)

Vulture- When you first said click on the Vulture I clicked on the one in the text and it took me to my intro page. Could not figure out how that happened. But now I've clicked on your name at the top of a message and took the test...

Amusing, but I do not think tartan suits me..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 5, 2006 8:06 pm (#182 of 1629)
Edited Oct 5, 2006 9:33 pm

T Vrana:But DD has always taken risks. At the end of Book One we learn that DD had known about Quirell all along.

I agree that Dumbledore takes risks, often big risks. But I don't remember anything at the end of book one that told us that Dumbledore knew it was Quirrell all along. Did I miss something?

In HBP DD explains he didn't stop Draco himself for fear he would be killed. He did not consider Malfoy a pawn, but rather an innocent, and one of his students, just as worthy of protection as his other students.

I've no doubt that the reason Dumbledore gave was at least part of the truth, but not the whole truth. Dumbledore's desire to protect Draco should not be greater than his desire to protect the rest of his students from Draco's murderous deeds. Dumbledore had the further problem of the Unbreakable Vow, and he was perhaps trying to delay forcing it to a conclusion. But what else he was attempting to accomplish, I don't know. I think there had to be something to make the risk worthwhile.

DD did move the order inside. Why on this particular night? When we look at the list of DEs who were let in, and not a surprise, they are a pretty useless lot

I got the impression that Dumbledore always made sure the castle was guarded when he left. He may have also beefed up security in light of Harry's warning. There's always the chance he was paying attention.

I have to disagree that the Death Eaters were a useless lot. They managed to completely pin down the Order. We don't know that the Order managed to take down or capture even one of them. The only DE casualty we are certain of is Gibbon, who was taken out by the Big Blond (there's a remote chance that Fenrir and Brutal Face, who were both taken down by Harry, were captured. But I think we would have heard about it if so. The MoM would certainly want to crow if Fenrir had been permanently taken out of action). It would be a really sad thing if the Order didn't manage to capture any of the fleeing Death Eaters.

Edit: Besides Draco, there were at least eight Death Eaters in the castle. Order members fighting them were McGonagall, Lupin, Tonks, and Bill. Then there was Flitwick, who may or may not be an Order member, but he was sent away by McGonagall to fetch Snape and due to circumstances beyond his control never returned. Ron, Neville, and Ginny aided the Order. I'm not sure how even to consider the sides.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 6, 2006 4:21 am (#183 of 1629)

Mrs. Brisbee- Perhaps all along is not the right way to put it. But certainly he knew by the end of SS as he rushed back and said to Hermione "He's gone after him hasn't he?" WHen Harry gets out of the hospital wing he, ROn and Hermione discuss that DD knew and wanted to give Harry a chance at LV. Hermione is shocked at the RISK DD took.

Time is short so I'll get back to Draco later, but, Harry spent a great deal of time checking the Marauders Map over his map and never noticed patrols in the castle. Plus, the Order said when recounting that night that Malfoy did not seem to expect anyone inside. If Malfoy had been sneaking into the RoR on a regular basis and planning this thing all year, it would seem that he would have noticed if DD brought the Order in every time he left the castle. DD had already arranged for the extra inside security when Harry burst in with his info regarding Malfoy celebrating in the RoR.

I do think Fenrir made a difference, and the brutal faced one also seemed to be enforcing the "Draco must do it" edict, and may not have been in Malfoy's plan.

The MoM did find brutal face on the tower.

This is a bit out there, but big blond seems to be mentioned over and over. But the only damage he does is to the castle and Gibbon. He alsmost seesm to be laying down cover fire to keep eveyone down. I have wondered if he is really working on the 'good' side. Last time LV was around Fudge mentioned several useful spies, so we should not assume Snape (if he is 'good') is the only spy.

I'll get back to Draco later!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 6, 2006 5:37 am (#184 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 6:39 am

T Vrana brings out excellent points that 1. Harry would have noticed Order patrols on the Marauders Map and 2. Draco, working to arrange a DE attack when DD was gone, would also have noticed such patrols.

But in addition, we have one piece of evidence that makes DD's knowledge of an impending attack almost certain: Lupin's presence that night.

Lupin told Harry at Christmas that he'd been assigned to infiltrate the werewolves. He said that this assignment was sort of "underground" and made it impossible for him to be in touch with Harry. Yet the night of the tower events, Lupin was with the Order, patrolling within the castle.

This means that Lupin was specially recalled from his werewolf assignment for that night's patrol.

Because DD placed Order members within the castle, and recalled Lupin especially to help with the patrol, I think we can be certain that DD was very aware that there could be a DE attack within the castle that night. That means he knew the DE's entrance would be from within, rather than from without the castle.

Yet DD did not have Snape on patrol, even though he is one of the Order. He knew that Snape would be in his rooms.

Another point. When DD told Harry (when they first got to the tower), to go get Snape and bring him back, he told Harry to be under the invisibility cloak and to not tell anyone what he was doing. He said this knowing that there was an attack going on, and knowing that there were Order members below in the castle. DD did not want Order members to come to the tower.

Last, I'll re-state my position that Snape knew he would find DD on the tower. He could not have gotten that information from anyone -- Flitwick didn't know that, nor any other Order member. Yet Tonks gave evidence that Snape went directly through the fighting straight for the tower. He knew where to go. And remember, his object would not have been to find a magical barrier. His object was to get to Dumbledore as soon as possible. And he knew exactly where to go to find him. The other Order members did not even know that DD was in the castle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 6, 2006 7:58 am (#185 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 9:01 am

Since my last post a few hours back, I've done some thinking and analyzing. First what I think we can know with a fair amount of certainty (as long as JKR didn't just make mistakes, but actually had a purpose in the events), and some theories for what could explain it.

The fact that Lupin was there at all, and that Order members were patrolling inside means that DD knew DE's would probably come and they'd enter Hogwarts from inside the castle, not from the outside. (See above post for explanation.)

Snape's moving directly to the tower, when his goal must have been to reach DD, means that he knew that DD would be on the tower. (See above post.)

Therefore, DD went to the tower knowing the Order was below fighting and that Snape would come up to the tower, and that Draco and possibly DE's would also come to the tower.

DD froze Harry under the cloak. This was a very dangerous decision if DD expected a wand "fire fight." DD never released Harry, therefore DD did not expect the confrontations to become a "fire fight."

DD both allowed Draco to expelliarmus his wand and did not retrieve it when he probably could have either kept it or retrieved it. Therefore, DD wanted to appear defenseless.

So

DD wanted to be on the tower, confronting Draco and possibly DE's, and for Snape to be there, too. DD wanted to be without his wand. But he did not expect an all out "fire fight." He kept Harry frozen, therefore he did not want Harry to interfere, or to be caught, etc.

If DD did not expect a fight, even though he expected Draco, possible DE's, and Snape, then he did not expect Snape to try to save him.

DD did not think Draco would kill him. He didn't think Draco was a killer.

Therefore, DD must have intended Snape to AK him. He must have planned on it.

If he told Snape to come to the tower, knowing that Draco, DE's, and a confrontation would take place then he knew that push would come to shove and Snape would have to AK him.

But if DD knew all of this ahead of time, and went into it anyway, we have a problem with the options for why.

1. He willingly and deliberately created the catalyst (leaving the castle, going to the tower, etc.) that would result in his death. Therefore, DD's death was suicidal, even if for a good cause.

2. He knew all of this would happen, but had a contingency plan so that it would not result in his death. However, this could have been a very risky plan (DD's into risk taking), and could have still resulted in his death. But it takes away the suicide element, as well as explaining some of the peculiarities of the scene.

3. His death was coming anyway (perhaps through the ring horcrux? or he knew the Cave would kill him?), so he planned all of this out knowing that his death was coming, and he simply contrived the manner of it. Still a type of suicide, but a little different.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 6, 2006 8:54 am (#186 of 1629)

When the Dark Mark was sent into the sky, doesn't that also trigger the dark mark on all DE? Snape would have known to go to the tower directly, wouldn't he?


wynnleaf - Oct 6, 2006 9:00 am (#187 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 10:02 am

No, we have no canon to that effect. What we know is that Voldemort himself can activate the Dark Mark on the arms of the DE's. I think that's is the only canon we have about that.

My guess is that Snape learned about the DE's and the basic plan from another DE, and that's how DD knew that he would be going to the tower. That is just a guess, of course.

Someone (couldn't find who), recently reminded me that one of the DE's commented to Snape when he arrived on the tower and did not seem surprised to see him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 6, 2006 9:07 am (#188 of 1629)

What about Barty Crouch Jr.? Don't remember if a trigger was sent or just the visual to the others.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 6, 2006 9:40 am (#189 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 10:51 am

Thom- The dark mark appears on their arms if LV touches a dark mark, but do we know the dark mark appearing in the sky does anything?

Wynnleaf- Nice analysis. Good point about Lupin. I have to think about the rest....

edit- oops, cross posted, already covered the dark mark thing...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 6, 2006 9:56 am (#190 of 1629)

wynnleaf-

When Snape bursts in Amyscus is described as having his wand and eyes fixed on DD. But he immediately calls him by name. If they expected him, why was he still in the office 'til Flitwick arrived? Was Malfoy told to tell him it was going to be that night and didn't?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 6, 2006 9:59 am (#191 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 11:00 am

When Snape bursts in Amyscus is described as having his wand and eyes fixed on DD. But he immediately calls him by name. If they expected him, why was he still in the office 'til Flitwick arrived? Was Malfoy told to tell him it was going to be that night and didn't?

Just a guess of course, but I'm wondering if Snape got information from a DE about at least the basics of what would go on that night. He was not officially involved in the planning for it, since Draco wasn't telling him anything. However, it could be that Amyscus knew that someone (maybe Amyscus) had told Snape what would happen and was therefore unsurprised to see him suddenly taking a part in events.

So in my theory, Amyscus wasn't expecting Snape to be a part of the attack, because he had not been a part of the plans, but nor was he surprised to see him there.

Of course, DE's wouldn't know that Snape had actually told DD what was going on and was working in cooperation with DD.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 6, 2006 10:02 am (#192 of 1629)

Yes, Amycus makes a comment to Snape after Snape arrives on the tower....."We've got a problem, Snape," said the lumpy Amycus, whose eyes and wand were fixed alike on Dumbledore, "the boy doesn't seem able...."

There is no indication that the four DE's were or were not surprised to see Snape. I doubt they would be, knowing that Snape works at Hogwarts and thinking he is a fellow DE. They do seem content to let Snape take the lead once he arrives.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 6, 2006 10:49 am (#193 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 12:56 pm

wynnleaf-

1. He willingly and deliberately created the catalyst (leaving the castle, going to the tower, etc.) that would result in his death. Therefore, DD's death was suicidal, even if for a good cause.

2. He knew all of this would happen, but had a contingency plan so that it would not result in his death. However, this could have been a very risky plan (DD's into risk taking), and could have still resulted in his death. But it takes away the suicide element, as well as explaining some of the peculiarities of the scene.

3. His death was coming anyway (perhaps through the ring horcrux? or he knew the Cave would kill him?), so he planned all of this out knowing that his death was coming, and he simply contrived the manner of it. Still a type of suicide, but a little different.


1. I don't think DD planned to die. Not his style.

2. More like what I'm thinking. DD would deal with what happened when it happened, not suicidal, but confident in his abilities and unafraid of death. The only time we have seen DD afraid was when Harry or his students were in danger. I do think DD values Malfoy as a student and an innocent. Despite his desire to rid the world of LV, DD will not sacrifice an innocent to save himself.

3. Nah. I don't think the ring horcrux was really killing him or that his hand was dead. He used this hand at the Dursley's so fast that Harry hardly saw it. Then, much later, in the cave, he uses it to find LV's door. His hand, while appearing dead seems very much alive. He moves in the cave "with the sudden agility of a much younger man". Giant squid aside, the ring horcrux seems not to have done enough damage to kill DD. I believe DD when he says the potion was not designed to kill.

So much depends on the Vow. Had a theory about it that was munched long ago. May try again...

edit: If DD knew about the vow, and the vow is what we think it is (deadly if broken), and what it was made for (kill dd), then he didn't know when he picked up Harry. He said to the Dursley's "until we meet again". Also, Snape was threatening Harry with detentions into the next school year, after Sectumsempra, so I don' think he planned on being gone. Small things, but choices Jo made when she chose their words.

My theory relates to the Vow and what Draco's task was and therefore what Snape vowed to do. It seems to me this vow is the clincher and we know almost nothing about it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 6, 2006 2:10 pm (#194 of 1629)

Mrs Brisbee --But what else he was attempting to accomplish, I don't know. I think there had to be something to make the risk worthwhile.--

Maybe there is something to it. I've theorized before that his giving his life to protect Draco and Snape might give one of them the same sort of protection that Lily gave Harry. Maybe Snape really will redeem himself in Harry's eyes by throwing himself in front of an AK, but it won't kill him because he's protected... Who knows?.....

As to Lupin being there, there is the possibility that Lupin was there because Fenrin was. If Lupin is among the werewolves and he finds out through one of them that Fenrin in doing something that night and finds out what, he might have been the one to alert the Order and the reason there are Order members inside the castle at the ready. I don't personally believe it, but the best theories come from finding wholes and finding canon-based ways to fill them in.

wynnleaf --But if DD knew all of this ahead of time, and went into it anyway, we have a problem with the options for why.

1. He willingly and deliberately created the catalyst (leaving the castle, going to the tower, etc.) that would result in his death. Therefore, DD's death was suicidal, even if for a good cause.

2. He knew all of this would happen, but had a contingency plan so that it would not result in his death. However, this could have been a very risky plan (DD's into risk taking), and could have still resulted in his death. But it takes away the suicide element, as well as explaining some of the peculiarities of the scene.

3. His death was coming anyway (perhaps through the ring horcrux? or he knew the Cave would kill him?), so he planned all of this out knowing that his death was coming, and he simply contrived the manner of it. Still a type of suicide, but a little different.


I don't think that Dumbledore willingly let all this happen or went out that night intending to die. I could see him setting things up, just in case, though. He probably would have allowed for the possibility that he'd have to die eventually to save Draco and Snape. Dumbledore is completely calm while talking to Draco and the other DEs, until Snape enters and Amycus says, "the boy doesn't seem able....", and then he starts to plead with Snape. I think he had intended to give Draco the chance to come over to the good side, intended to send Draco and Narcissa into hiding, but when saw that he'd have to fall back on dieing for the kid, he did so willingly. As someone pointed out, Dumbledore could've probably called his wand from the base of the tower, even if he couldn't, we've seen from OotP that he can call Fawkes to him in an instant and vanish (he could've vanished to the tower base, retrieved his wand, and returned) and we've seen from CoS that Fawkes can attack if necessary (remember he scratched the eyes out of the basilisk). I definitely agree that Dumbledore didn't intend for there to be a firefight or to even have to use any force that night (as far as the tower was concerned), no matter which plan he had to go with.

T Vrana --I believe DD when he says the potion was not designed to kill.--

Dumbledore says that Voldemort wouldn't want to immediately kill the person who reached the island as he'd want to question them, but he isn't sure what affects the potion will have. It is possible that the potion would've caused a very slow and painful death that stretched out over a period of time. What I'm wondering is how would Voldemort have known that someone reached the island? Was there something there that would alert him to a presence in the cave?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 6, 2006 2:41 pm (#195 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 3:43 pm

S E Jones-

DD didn't seem to think LV knew when his horcruxes were disturbed. Hence my thought that the potion was meant to:

a) stop the drinker from consuming all the potion

b) if the drinker did manange it all, weaken him/her

c) make the drinker thristy, but make lake water the only available beverage

Disturbing the lake water brought out the inferi. No need for a long painful death, and no time for LV to question the intruder if the inferi pulled him/her into the lake and drowned him/her(which is what they tried to do). Unless, the lake is Draught of living death, and the simulated 'death' keeps the intruder from drowning and preserves them for awakening and questioning when LV does get around to checking.

Since LV didn't show up in all the time they were in the cave, I assume he didn't have a way to know and get there quickly.

But Harry was grabbed and only poured the water over DD's face. I think a very small amount could have trickled in to DD's mouth. Not enough to throw him into immediate sleep, but enough to eventually put him to sleep. Thus his appearing to be on the verge of nodding off on the tower.

And draught of living death, when properly brewed, looks like water...

Just a thought...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 6, 2006 4:19 pm (#196 of 1629)

Yeah, but from what I've read about the potion in the Lex and the books, it only puts you into a coma-like state (i.e. Sleeping Beauty). Even if he had taken the potion, he took the AK in the chest and fell off a tower. I somehow doubt the potion miraculously kept him from getting AK-ed and, well, splattered. I just can't see it happening.

It seems to me that the person who drank the potion would either get away without getting the locket, die from being passed out and starving to death, or get killed by the Inferi, all of which would result in death prior to Voldemort getting to them to question how they knew to go to the cave. So, as all these other possibilities seem to include either allowing the person to get away or killing them, I don't see why the potion couldn't have been a very slow acting poison of some sort.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 6, 2006 4:29 pm (#197 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 5:32 pm

Well, we really don't know exactly what Draught of living death does, do we? And why have DD make the point that LV would want to question the drinker, but then make that impossible? Even someone who only had a little of the potion I think would be thirsty and drink the lake water, succumb to 'living death' and get dragged under for later questioning, because LV would want to know what he/she knew AND who else knew. Letting anyone get out would endanger his horcruxes and he's very serious about living forever.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 6, 2006 5:13 pm (#198 of 1629)
Edited Oct 6, 2006 6:18 pm

Could if have to do with Slughorn teaching the Draught as his first N.E.W.T. example potion to the class with the Felix Felicis as a prize, and thus the potions scribbled instructions leading him to the HBP?

Snape also mentioend this in his first monologue tot he students in a way "how to stopper death", then asked Harry what would you get if he mixed Asphodel with an infusion of Wormwood.

Possibly Snape was the one who took the original locket and refilled the basin with Draught of Living Death to catch LV in his own trap?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Saracene - Oct 7, 2006 12:46 am (#199 of 1629)

It honestly hurts my head to try and analyse every single detail of that night, but my overall personal feeling goes like this. I think that Dumbledore had some sort of a plan on how to deal with the whole Draco/Unbreakable Vow issue. But that plan went horribly off the rails on the night of his death because DD made a fatal mistake in believing that no one could enter Hogwarts from the outside, and thus did not anticipate the presence of Death Eaters which changed everything. One might balk at the idea that a 150-year-old super-wizard could be outwitted by some teenage twerp, but I was struck by DD saying earlier on in the cave about how "old age is foolish when it underestimates youth". He was talking about Voldemort at the time, but I think it could just as well apply to DD himself. So yeah, I think that, partially at least, it was a fiasco.

Regarding the Old Wise Mentor Death thing: it might be a well-worn convention, but conventions don't become conventions just because and breaking it won't necessarily make for a better story. Naturally, Harry will have help in the last book, he may even get it from DD in some roundabout way despite DD being dead. But I think that it makes perfect sense that Harry must lose his biggest protector and safety net before the end - especially with HP being the coming-of-age series.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 7, 2006 1:33 pm (#200 of 1629)

S E Jones- I would even go a step further and say it is possible the potion, draught of living death and inferi have already worked. I think perhaps RAB is in the lake clutching the locket/horcrux and that is why a body 'jumps' in the water when Harry tries "Accio Horcrux!"

Saracene- I absolutely agree that Harry has to go on alone, and expected DD to die. It wasn't until after closer reading that, like so many others, I began to question if DD died, and if he had to in order for Harry to go on alone, as long as Harry 'knew' he was alone. Good point with DD's comment on the old underestimating the young!

I still think DD could have accio'd his wand, or the line about his mercy is an empty one.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 201 to 225

Post  Lady Arabella on Mon May 16, 2011 8:58 pm



Vulture - Oct 7, 2006 3:57 pm (#201 of 1629)
Edited Oct 7, 2006 4:59 pm

This is a bit out there, but big blond seems to be mentioned over and over. But the only damage he does is to the castle and Gibbon. He alsmost seesm to be laying down cover fire to keep eveyone down. I have wondered if he is really working on the 'good' side. Last time LV was around Fudge mentioned several useful spies, so we should not assume Snape (if he is 'good') is the only spy. (T Vrana - Oct 6, 2006 5:21 am (#183)

You've forgotten that Ron, Hermione, & Co. had all taken Felix Felicis. It wasn't goodness or ineptness on Big Blond's part _ Ron & Co. told Harry afterwards that, by rights, they should all have been dead.

Another point. When DD told Harry (when they first got to the tower), to go get Snape and bring him back, he told Harry to be under the invisibility cloak and to not tell anyone what he was doing. He said this knowing that there was an attack going on, and knowing that there were Order members below in the castle. DD did not want Order members to come to the tower. (wynnleaf- Oct 6, 2006 6:37 am (#184)

Well, "knowing that there was an attack going on" _ that's just a theory, isn't it ? It may be a strong theory, but still a theory. I agree with the rest.

Someone (couldn't find who), recently reminded me that one of the DE's commented to Snape when he arrived on the tower and did not seem surprised to see him. wynnleaf - Oct 6, 2006 10:00 am (#187)

That was me !! Click on Vulture, "+ Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?" #165, 5 Oct 2006 8:48 am _ second paragraph.

Also, Snape was threatening Harry with detentions into the next school year, after Sectumsempra, so I don' think he planned on being gone. (T Vrana - Oct 6, 2006 11:49 am (#193)

As against that, Snape must have known the Defence Against The Dark Arts job's reputation for no-one lasting more than a year.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 7, 2006 4:23 pm (#202 of 1629)

Vulture- Yes, but none of the other Order members took Felix and they were unscathed by all the spells he was throwing around as well.

As for the Defense job, it could be only one year in that job. He could have gone back to potions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mediwitch - Oct 7, 2006 5:40 pm (#203 of 1629)

T Vrana: I think perhaps RAB is in the lake clutching the locket/horcrux and that is why a body 'jumps' in the water when Harry tries "Accio Horcrux!"

T Vrana, at first I thought that as well, but then I thought that if that one body (RAB?) actually had a horcrux, it would have zoomed right to Harry and Dumbledore, and not fallen back into the lake. (**working Dumbledore in in an effort to remain even tangentially close to topic**)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 7, 2006 5:51 pm (#204 of 1629)
Edited Oct 7, 2006 6:53 pm

Three possibilites:

1) The accio, intended to get a horcrux, (which Harry would have assumed was the size of a ring, a cup, a locket etc) was not strong enough to retrieve a horcrux and body.

2) The inferi still had hold of RAB and the accio wasn't strong enough for a horcrux and two bodies

3) Harry is not yet powerful enough to accio something so large

Also, when Lucius Malfoy tried to accio the prophesy, Harry held on to it, he didn't go flying along with prophesy to Lucius. I'm assuming RAB is in a death like state with the horcrux clutched within his hand. Think Harry will need to go back to the cave, where DD drank the potion and lake water that night he may have died.

Not sure we need to mention DD since this all relates to his death, or death like slumber...But there I mentioned him..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Saracene - Oct 7, 2006 6:51 pm (#205 of 1629)

T Vrana:

---This is a bit out there, but big blond seems to be mentioned over and over. But the only damage he does is to the castle and Gibbon. He alsmost seesm to be laying down cover fire to keep eveyone down. I have wondered if he is really working on the 'good' side. Last time LV was around Fudge mentioned several useful spies, so we should not assume Snape (if he is 'good') is the only spy.---

Theoretically there may be, but since this is a fictional story I very much doubt that, in the very last book, JKR will introduce a brand new character who was working in the DE camp in disguise all that time. She has enough characters to deal with as there are!

BTW, T Vrana, I forgot to say that it's really good to see you around again, Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  2752390508

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 7, 2006 7:01 pm (#206 of 1629)

Hi, Saracene-

Thanks! It is good to be back. I was involved in a twelve step program for Lex Forum addicts, but it didn't take....

You are probably right. He just seemed to get so much attention for his short appearance in HBP, and he was either really incompetent or really good.

See you around...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 8, 2006 4:17 am (#207 of 1629)

You are probably right. He just seemed to get so much attention for his short appearance in HBP, and he was either really incompetent or really good.

Add to that the rather odd fact that despite all the attention he got (from JKR), she didn't name him. Now that's peculiar. My guess is that either 1. his identity is important and we'll be told later or 2. he's an intentional red herring.

On another note. The theory I put together about how DD could have planned most of his and Snape's actions that night, in response to knowing more of Draco's plans than we're told in the book, involves some very complex plans that depend on a lot of perfect timing and people acting within the plan, even if unknowingly.

I was remembering the conversation that Hagrid overheard between DD and Snape and the phrase "you take too much for granted." While I have always assumed that Snape probably referred to DD telling him he'd have to AK him, I always thought the phrase sounded just a bit "off" if that was Snape's meaning. However, suppose what Snape was referring to was DD devising a complex plan? Then the phrase "you take too much for granted" makes perfect sense. If DD tried to plan out exactly how he and Snape would respond, assuming he could predict just what Draco would do, then he was indeed taking too much for granted.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nicholas Schouten - Oct 8, 2006 4:24 pm (#208 of 1629)
Edited Oct 8, 2006 5:26 pm

Very good discussions! Just thought I would through this "wild hare" idea out there and see how it sticks:

Perhaps there was an agreement between Snape and DD that if push comes to shove, Snape would commit the "murder" of DD and then Snape was to create a Horcrux after killing DD in order to further his goals as a spy of the Order in the ranks of the DE (just in case Snape should need that kind of "protection"). (Of course we don't know how soon the Horcrux spell must be done, etc., but in the absence of canon on that, it could be possible.)

Kind of the old saying, what goes around comes around!

-Nick

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 8, 2006 4:27 pm (#209 of 1629)

I don't think DD would ever approve of creating a horcrux. Just my humble opinion...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Nicholas Schouten - Oct 8, 2006 5:12 pm (#210 of 1629)
Edited Oct 8, 2006 6:18 pm

Even if DD was dying, if Snape hastened the death of DD by one minute, then it was "murder", whether or not DD acquiesced in the death (as none of the "legalistic" "standard exceptions" apply, such as a killing during war, a killing in self-defense, a killing to prevent the commission of a crime, a killing done by one who is the instrument carrying out a state pronouncement (such as a judgment), etc.).

Since a "murder" is the prerequisite, as it is the thing that "rips apart the soul" and that the "murder" is that which is the evil thing that rips apart the soul (see HPB Chapter entitled "Horcrux"), then to the extent that there is a murder of DD by Snape, Snape could take advantage of that for the making of the Horcrux, in accordance with a pre-arranged agreement between Snape and DD (all, of course, to allow Snape to continue in his job for a long time and still "survive" the wrath of LV should Snape be discovered).

If DD was willing to be murdered and Snape was bound to murder DD (albeit [maybe] at DD's "request"), then all the pieces are in place for the execution of the Horcrux spell. From canon it appears that nothing additionally evil needs be done.

Just food for thought.

-Nick

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 8, 2006 5:52 pm (#211 of 1629)

I don't think it is just the act of killing and ripping the soul that is the very evil part of it, but the act of pulling that piece of soul out and away from the rest and putting it in a seperate object. I don't think Dumbledore would approve of a Horcrux for that reason, even if he does approve of killing or dieing for a good cause.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 8, 2006 7:44 pm (#212 of 1629)

Saracene: "It honestly hurts my head to try and analyse every single detail of that night, but my overall personal feeling goes like this. I think that Dumbledore had some sort of a plan on how to deal with the whole Draco/Unbreakable Vow issue. But that plan went horribly off the rails on the night of his death because DD made a fatal mistake in believing that no one could enter Hogwarts from the outside, and thus did not anticipate the presence of Death Eaters which changed everything."

That was my general impression, too. Dumbledore seems to want to get to Snape because he is ill after drinking all that green potion. But he also seems to want to let Draco confront him. But I did not get the impression that Dumbledore wanted to see Snape and Draco together on the Tower. I know a lot of people have an opposite view, but Dumbledore abandons his idea to get to Snape when he sees the Dark Mark. When he gets to the Tower and sees no one there-- and his health takes a turn for the worse-- he then tries to send Harry to get Snape. When Draco bursts through the door, Dumbledore freezes Harry--therefore Harry can't get Snape. I do think Dumbledore wanted to confront Draco, but I don't think he wanted Snape standing there if Draco was busy failing his mission.

I am wondering what the mission of the Order patrol in the school was. Ron, Ginny, and Neville ran across them on the 7th floor. But Ron & Co had been staking out the RoR for a long time and never saw the Order until after the DEs came out. Where was the Order patrolling? If Dumbledore really took Harry's warning seriously, I would expect they would be seen near the RoR at some point. On the other hand, they were up on the 7th floor. Was that pure chance?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Meoshimo - Oct 8, 2006 7:49 pm (#213 of 1629)
Edited Oct 8, 2006 8:50 pm

Of course the killing and subsequent ripping of the soul is a very evil part of it. Dumbledore would never, never approve of a horcrux under any circumstance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 8, 2006 8:17 pm (#214 of 1629)

I am wondering what the mission of the Order patrol in the school was. Ron, Ginny, and Neville ran across them on the 7th floor. But Ron & Co had been staking out the RoR for a long time and never saw the Order until after the DEs came out. Where was the Order patrolling? If Dumbledore really took Harry's warning seriously, I would expect they would be seen near the RoR at some point. On the other hand, they were up on the 7th floor. Was that pure chance?

If they were on the 7th floor on DD's orders, that would be quite interesting. The Divination tower is accessed from the 7th floor. At least, that's the way it looks in the Lexicon comments on what's located on the various floors of Hogwarts. Check out the Malfoy's Task thread.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Starling - Oct 9, 2006 3:33 am (#215 of 1629)
Edited Oct 9, 2006 4:34 am

Draught of the living death.

Inferi = the living dead.

Does the draught turn you into an inferius? For all we know, your brain could enter a coma-like state, but your body wanders off on its own.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 9, 2006 4:49 am (#216 of 1629)

The draught of of living death is described as a sleeping potion so potent that it simulates death. I think Inferi are truly dead. Otherwise I would think it woudl have come up in Snape's discussion of inferi or Slughorn's discussion of the draught. Seems like DD would have brought it up in the cave as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Oct 9, 2006 6:59 am (#217 of 1629)

I for one like the idea of R.A.B. being the inferius that jumped out of the lake. I had mentioned it awhile back on the R.A.B. thread,but it didn't get too much possitive feedback. It just didn't make sense to me that only one inferius jumped out of the water if accio'ing the horcrux was some kind of alarm.I agree,Harry will have to revisit the cave. Because the locket is a fake,he might retrace his tracks.I do not think the locket at Grimmauld is the horcrux because Harry didn't notice Slytherin's mark.Of course Jo may not have wanted it to be too obvious,but mentioning only one other gold locket is obvious enough IMO.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 9, 2006 7:21 am (#218 of 1629)

The Room of Requirement and the entrance to the Divination tower are both on the 7th floor, so we can't prove anything by that. They could have been checking on either Trelawney, knowing that Voldemort might have still be interested in the prophecy, considering her initials were on the paper lable at the MoM and someone at some point could have noticed that. Or they could have been checking on the RoR the night Dumbledore died.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

juliebug - Oct 9, 2006 7:26 am (#219 of 1629)

If I may briefly skew of topic, I think Madame Pomfrey may be right about the locket at Grimmauld Place not being the horcrux. The description of the locket in OotP is a heavy metal locket which none of them could open. We know from the pensieve memory that the Slytherin locket is gold. It is possible the when JKR called the locket at the Black house metal that it is gold, but usually when I think of metal jewelry, it's silver-toned. It could also be that the gold locket was so dirty that nobody could tell it was gold, but that seems like we could be making too many assumptions. If anyone one would like to discuss this further, I will copy what I have so far and paste it under horcruxes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 9, 2006 7:45 am (#220 of 1629)
Edited Oct 9, 2006 8:46 am

Die Zimtzicke: "The Room of Requirement and the entrance to the Divination tower are both on the 7th floor, so we can't prove anything by that. They could have been checking on either Trelawney, knowing that Voldemort might have still be interested in the prophecy, considering her initials were on the paper lable at the MoM and someone at some point could have noticed that. Or they could have been checking on the RoR the night Dumbledore died."

I guess the point I was trying to make-- but wasn't clear about-- was that the Order didn't seem to be keeping a specific eye on the RoR, and any theory we come up with about what was going on that night needs to take that into account.

Ron, Ginny, and Neville were standing outside the RoR door for over an hour and never once saw the Order patrolling that corridor. The Order may have been patrolling the whole castle and only just happened along, or they may have been guarding something else on the seventh floor, or they may have been hanging out in Flitwick's office playing poker until they heard a commotion and went to investigate. We just don't know. But it does appear that they weren't paying any special attention to the RoR that night, despite Harry's warning to Dumbledore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Starling - Oct 9, 2006 8:37 am (#221 of 1629)

Gold is very heavy, so a "heavy metal" locket could be made of gold. It would have been made of either gold or silver, I doubt anyone would want a lead or pewter locket ... A silver locket wouldn't be that heavy, unless you put something heavy in it. A snake wouldn't have really been noticed in a house owned by a Black.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 9, 2006 8:42 am (#222 of 1629)
Edited Oct 9, 2006 9:47 am

OR, because of Harry's warning to DD. If DD knew a little about Malfoy's plan and wanted to give Draco a chance to learn he was not a murderer and join the DD wizard protection program, he may have give the Order instructions which would keep them in between the students (and maybe Trelawney) and the DEs, but give the DEs and Malfoy access to the tower.

M pomfrey- Small detail, but I don't think RAB is an inferius. I think the Draught of Living Death is keeping him 'alive', or, maybe, 'definitely dead'.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Elanor - Oct 9, 2006 10:54 am (#223 of 1629)
Edited Oct 9, 2006 12:15 pm

Nick: "Even if DD was dying, if Snape hastened the death of DD by one minute, then it was "murder", whether or not DD acquiesced in the death (as none of the "legalistic" "standard exceptions" apply, such as a killing during war, a killing in self-defense, a killing to prevent the commission of a crime, a killing done by one who is the instrument carrying out a state pronouncement (such as a judgment), etc.).

Since a "murder" is the prerequisite, as it is the thing that "rips apart the soul" and that the "murder" is that which is the evil thing that rips apart the soul (see HPB Chapter entitled "Horcrux")"

Very good food for thought! And it makes me think of the destruction of the horcruxes themselves: since destroying a horcrux is destroying a part of a human soul, is destroying a horcrux technically a murder? Not that I think Harry would use the destruction for creating one but "technically", from an ethical point of view, could this destruction qualify as a murder?

I'm wondering this because there is also another possibility: DD wearing the real horcrux on him on the tower and Snape's AK's aim being in fact the destruction of the horcrux. Would this act also be a murder then?

That said, I do think the symbolic meaning of the scene on the tower and of DD's fall from it is the most telling clue of all, and the most interesting when thinking of book 7 (See for example post #832 to 836 of the Alchemy thread, here).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 9, 2006 12:00 pm (#224 of 1629)

Minor point, but I thought the entrance to Trelawney's classroom was in the North Tower. I know Sir Cadogan led them a long way to get there when he showed them the way. I did not think it was near Dumbledore's office or the Room of Requirement or the entrance to the Gryffindor common room, but in a completely different tower of the castle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Oct 9, 2006 12:19 pm (#225 of 1629)

Just checked the book. Lupin says that the death eaters moved towards the astronomy tower. The tower was the highest point and the dark mark would be seen from far away. This seems to suggest to me that this was their goal. It was an ambush. There is nothing to suggest that they made for Trewlanys tower.



Last edited by Lady Arabella on Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 226 to 250

Post  Lady Arabella on Mon May 16, 2011 9:04 pm



T Vrana - Oct 9, 2006 12:31 pm (#226 of 1629)
Edited Oct 9, 2006 1:33 pm

Ron comments that Malfoy threw up some darkness powder and then they could hear a bunch of DEs going by them. They could not see how many or which way they went.

Lupin saw a group of DEs move toward the Astronomy Tower some ways away from the RoR. Just because he didn't see another set of DEs going to Trelawney's tower, doesn't mean it could not have happened, just that he wasn't near there to see them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Oct 9, 2006 1:03 pm (#227 of 1629)

Lupin ran into the Ginny etc. almost immediately. I think that any death eaters that would have strayed would have come back to join the fight. If they encountered resistance then they would have almost certainly wanted to be able to retreat. They appeared to want to fight to the death this tme. We only saw the death eaters running out of the grounds once Dumbledore had been killed. There was nobody extra mentioned. Unless they managed to go out the same way that they came in. It sounds like the fight happend almost immediately.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 9, 2006 1:04 pm (#228 of 1629)
Edited Oct 9, 2006 2:06 pm

Lupin saw a group of DEs move toward the Astronomy Tower some ways away from the RoR.

Lupin said this... hmm.

For some reason the Lexicon lists the North Tower, divination classroom and Trelawney's rooms as accessed through the 7th floor. But I'm not sure what's the basis for that info.

One of the big clues I think we've got is the number of times Dumbledore talked about Trelawney needing to stay at Hogwarts for her safety. Harry pays little to no attention to that concern, and perhaps readers don't either. After all, in OOTP Umbridge was about to make Trelawney leave. But I almost never see anyone mention this in relation to how that would have benefited LV and the fact that DD really needed to keep Trelawney protected in the castle.

Since this is a concern for which we get several warnings, it makes sense that JKR would finally follow through on that and have Trelawney come into danger from LV and DE's.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 9, 2006 1:12 pm (#229 of 1629)
Edited Oct 9, 2006 2:12 pm

Elanor --And it makes me think of the destruction of the horcruxes themselves: since destroying a horcrux is destroying a part of a human soul, is destroying a horcrux technically a murder?--

I'm not sure you actually destroy the piece of soul when you destroy the horcrux so much as release it from the object holding it. I think it then goes wherever it is destined to go (i.e. pass beyond the viel maybe?).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Starling - Oct 9, 2006 1:55 pm (#230 of 1629)

Or does it go back to its owner? Which would mean Voldemort would have his entire soul back in the end? Hmm, I'm not sure if that's likely, there seem to be implications that the piece of soul is destroyed. And if it's not the last horcrux, wouldn't it be more grievous bodily harm than murder?

I have a real recipe for a Hand of Glory, I kid you not.

Never tried it, you don't get a lot of gibbeted crooks around here anymore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 9, 2006 2:08 pm (#231 of 1629)

The impression l got from what was said on Horcruxes is that, once removed, the piece of soul never returns to the body, which makes me think that it simply moves on to where it's supposed to go while the rest of the soul remains behind, either in the body or the remaining horcruxes. I mean, didn't Dumbledore say that the reason Voldemort didn't die was because his soul was anchored down (bound to this earth) by the presence of pieces of his soul in the horcruxes? It seems to me that, when the horcrux is destroyed, the anchor is simply taken away, so the soul would dissipate (or move through the veil).

(Of course, this idea is colored by my own belief that you can't destroy a soul.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 9, 2006 3:15 pm (#232 of 1629)
Edited Oct 9, 2006 5:25 pm

wynnleaf- What Lupin actually said was that Ron et al ran into them (Lupin et al) almost immediately, and some minutes later they found the DEs heading for the Astronomy Tower. The "some minutes later" led me to believe the Astronomy tower must be an appreciable distance from the RoR.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 9, 2006 6:48 pm (#233 of 1629)

I think it would be too good to think that the soul bit goes on to the "great beyond", there to be joined by the other soul bits eventually. I think when the Horcrux is destroyed, the soul bit is destroyed also. That is part of the horror of creating a Horcrux. You maim you soul and it is lost to you forever.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Meoshimo - Oct 9, 2006 8:53 pm (#234 of 1629)

When you destroy a horcrux, you destroy the bit of soul therein. I'm looking for clues to support this conclusion. There's a bit somewhere where Dumbledore talks about destroying Voldemort utterly. I'll repost later when I find it.


Laura W - Oct 10, 2006 4:24 am (#235 of 1629)
Edited Oct 10, 2006 5:25 am

"There's a bit somewhere where Dumbledore talks about destroying Voldemort utterly. I'll repost later when I find it."



Meoshimo, is this what you are looking for? HBP, Chapter Horcruxes, p.475 (Raincoast):

"Harry sat in thought for a moment, then asked, 'So if all of the Horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort *could* be killed?'

'Yes, I think so,' said Dumbledore. 'Without his Horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with a maimed and diminished soul. Never forget, though, that while his soul may be damaged beyond repair, his brain and his magical power remain intact. It will take uncommon skill and power to kill a wizard like Voldemort, even without his Horcruxes.' "

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 10, 2006 8:57 am (#236 of 1629)

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question perhaps You could answer. When Dumbledore tells Draco, "No Draco, it is my mercy that counts now" or words to that effect, what does he mean? I know this is an important statement, but I'm not sure what's being implied here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 10, 2006 9:01 am (#237 of 1629)

I think, just my opinion of course, that DD is still capable of defending himself and chooses not to. Otherwise this statment is a hollow one.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 10, 2006 12:36 pm (#238 of 1629)
Edited Oct 10, 2006 1:38 pm

It is Dumbledore's mercy that is important at that moment, not Draco's. Dumbledore is mercifully offering Draco a way out of the mess he is in (not only hope for Draco, but for his whole family), and that is what's important. Salvation for Draco. I think Dumbledore knows he is dying, and so he needs no mercy from Draco, but in his mercy, he is showing Draco that there is a way out for him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Oct 10, 2006 12:38 pm (#239 of 1629)

Salvation from having a damaged and broken soul after murdering someone.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Meoshimo - Oct 10, 2006 1:51 pm (#240 of 1629)

Laura, I don't think that's what I'm looking for, but I also might be inventing memories here. Thanks for that post, though. I'm going to the library later today to look up a few things, I'll look for it there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 10, 2006 1:56 pm (#241 of 1629)

T Vrana, that's an intriguing thought. Choices, legolas, that makes a lot of sense.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 11, 2006 8:55 am (#242 of 1629)

Choices- I had not thought of it in those terms, but I like your interpretaton. I had thought only in terms of the ability to take action, not give guidance. Nice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


ctgretzky99 - Oct 16, 2006 12:03 pm (#243 of 1629)

Dumbledore is dead. It has been solidified by JKR who didint know quite how to tell a child that their favorite character is now gone in a live Q&A session.

Any ambiguity in the answer I believe is also based on the fact that although DD is dead, it does not mean he still can't help HP...remember, his portrait will be in the headmasters office as an example.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 17, 2006 7:41 pm (#244 of 1629)
Edited Oct 17, 2006 8:42 pm

HBP

Dumbledore's glasses were askew, his mouth agape, his eyes closed. "No." said Harry, shaking Dumbledore, "no, you're not dead, you said it wasn't poison, wake up, wake up

GoF

Harry fell backward, his glasses askew, clutching the cloak around him. A voice nearby said, "Ouch! Who's there?"

What is up with Harry and DD? Are there heads so oddly shaped, or glasses specially made so they never fall off there face? Mine fall off simply turning my head sometimes, and friends have lost theirs often as well from small things.

Why do DD and Harry, DD after the tower especially; only have their glasses go askew? Mine would have long since departed my company before I ever hit the ground from the top of the tower.

=?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 17, 2006 7:45 pm (#245 of 1629)

It's magic

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 17, 2006 7:49 pm (#246 of 1629)

Well that explains EVERYTHING in the books. It is all so clear now. Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  464751818

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 17, 2006 7:56 pm (#247 of 1629)

No need for novel posts here, no sir. Just the simple facts. When in doubt, "it's magic. Ok lets all go to bed and see you next July after we all read Harry Potter and It's Just Magic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 17, 2006 8:25 pm (#248 of 1629)

LOL

Since I can't buy that Jo suddenly got sloppy, either there is something more going on, or she wanted it to appear so. I mean, really, she chooses all the words. Either DD is desperately injured, or he is moving so fast Harry can hardly see it. Clues or red herrings?

If it was just a ruse to keep us up at night typing these posts...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 17, 2006 8:54 pm (#249 of 1629)

A lot of times readers analyze descriptions in the books as though JKR was simply reporting something she saw, rather than picking and choosing words for particular reasons.

So a question like why DD's glasses were only askew after a fall from a tower gets lots of answers about why they might stay on (not including the "magic" answer, but all the serious ones), just as though this was an event that really took place, JKR simply wrote what she saw, and now we have to figure out what really happened.

But in fact, JKR was making decisions to either describe things one way or another. When she chose to describe things that seem odd (like glasses askew after a huge fall), it was because she made the decision for there to be that somewhat peculiar aspect to DD after the fall. We have to ask ourselves why she did that, not come up with reasons for why the glasses stayed on just as though JKR had nothing to do with it. The same goes for all the other oddities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 18, 2006 12:31 am (#250 of 1629)

shadzar --What is up with Harry and DD? Are there heads so oddly shaped, or glasses specially made so they never fall off there face? Mine fall off simply turning my head sometimes, and friends have lost theirs often as well from small things.--

Really? It kinda sounds like you need new glasses. I've been wearing glasses since I was about a year old (so over two and a half decades) and never had a problem with them falling off when I turned my head, or even after falling off something. In fact, they usually hook behind an ear and do the "askew" thing, which actually hurts quite a lot as it not only catches the ear but the nose too. I watched the last time I got fitted for new glasses and they made sure the ear pieces went down a certain length behind the ears and curved correctly so they wouldn't fall off. They even had me shake my head and such to make sure. If your glasses fit you correctly, they should be snug to the sides of the head, should curve behind the ears, and shouldn't be easily lost. Like I said, I've been wearing glasses all my life and never had problems with them flying off (expect maybe twice, both times having been hit by something in the face), so I guess I don't find it all that odd that glasses in JKR's world only go askew.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Post 251 to 275

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 7:59 pm


shadzar - Oct 18, 2006 2:25 am (#251 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 3:26 am




Maybe because mine don't fully hook around my ears then I guess. But still, neither of us have fallen say 9 stories; or at least I haven't.

F=mv, force equals mass times velocity. An object in motion will remain in motion, and an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

I doubt DD reached terminal velocity in his fall, but am sure the fall had a bit of bounce at the end. The glasses would have then been more free to try to escape gravity and leave DD face rather than his whole body bouncing along with the glasses.

Maybe they did wrap around his ears and not just have crocked arms like mine then. (29 years wearing and mine fall off all the time.)

I wouldn't think his hat stayed on his head either unless he pinned it. Glasses just seem to be one of those small items that tend to fly away from people during a fall.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 5:18 am (#252 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 6:19 am

expect maybe twice, both times having been hit by something in the face

I think DD got hit with something in the face if the death is real. I guess its not the fall so much as that suDDen stop.

Wynnleaf- I agree completely. Writing is not reporting, so the seemingly tiny choices made are intentional. My pet choices (in aDDition to the glasses):

DD seeming to be quite injured but using his injured hand at the Dursleys so quickly Harry barely sees it.

DD slipping into the water at the cave like a much younger wizard (this after he descended the rocks slowly due to his injured hand)

DD using said hand to find LV's magic

DD telling Harry to get his invisibility cloak when he had told him to carry it at all times

And last but not least Draco telling DD his plan worked. DD's answer

Yes...and no..

GRRRR!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Oct 18, 2006 7:31 am (#253 of 1629)

HBP

Dumbledore's glasses were askew, his mouth agape, his eyes closed. "No." said Harry, shaking Dumbledore, "no, you're not dead, you said it wasn't poison, wake up, wake up.

Dumbledore's eyes were closed: but for the strange angle of his arms and legs,he might have been sleeping.

Harry had fallen asleep with his face pressed against the window. "his glasses askew and his mouth wide open."

There are so many references to sleep which is why I was so sure Dumbledore's "death" had been caused by Draught of Living Death.

He had known there was no hope from the moment that the full Body-Bind Curse Dumbledore had placed upon him lifted,known that it could have happened only because its caster was dead.

Even though Harry was immobilized shortly after from fear,I do not think the basin contents killed Dumbledore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 18, 2006 7:38 am (#254 of 1629)

I saw her as painting a picture for us of Dumbledore dying and trying to make him look at peace. With such a wide range of readers, lying mangled on the ground and splattered wouldn't have played too well. She never really gets into long descriptions that I can recall but she sort of had to do something with Dumbledore, because he was Dumbledore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 7:43 am (#255 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 8:45 am

I do not think the basin contents killed Dumbledore.

Me either. I still hold out some hope for The Draught.

Thom-

Sure, but why so many references to askew glasses and sleeping?

When you aDD the glasses slightly askew after such a huge fall, it makes one wonder...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 18, 2006 7:51 am (#256 of 1629)

T Vrana -

I don't know that JKR is making so many references as we are making them out to be. How many times do we see Harry losing his glasses? He drops them as often as he drops his wand. For me she was just softening the blow of his death, and I am trying not to read anything further into it at this point.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 18, 2006 8:01 am (#257 of 1629)

I saw her as painting a picture for us of Dumbledore dying and trying to make him look at peace. With such a wide range of readers, lying mangled on the ground and splattered wouldn't have played too well. She never really gets into long descriptions that I can recall but she sort of had to do something with Dumbledore, because he was Dumbledore. -- Thom Matheson

That's pretty much how I see it, too. I think Rowling wants to reinforce that Dumbledore greeted death with something other than fear. So the Sleeping/Peace image is presented, complete with the askew glasses.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 8:04 am (#258 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 9:05 am

The image could still have been peaceful, as though sleeping, but have Harry notice DD had lost his glasses. After all, the locket had broken open from the fall.

DD glasses were slightly askew from the events of the cave, and he gets the same reaction from a fall from the tallest tower? It is either sloppy or something more.

That Harry looses and breaks his glasses under much less violent circumstances argues my (and M Pomfrey's & Wynnleaf's) point.

Besides, where's the fun if we can't read into the clues Jo gives us?

Just MHO, of course..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 18, 2006 9:13 am (#259 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 10:14 am

The image could still have been peaceful, as though sleeping, but have Harry notice DD had lost his glasses.

But-- why? We would all just be wondering why if every other scene with sleep in it featured askew glasses how come this one has lost glasses instead? It must mean something!

Really, I see no reason for his glasses to have flown off his nose if they fit well.

After all, the locket had broken open from the fall.

The locket was open, but not broken. I once had a pocket watch which would sproing open if given a moderate thwack. I don't see anything oDD about how these two objects were effected by the fall.

DD glasses were slightly askew from the events of the cave, and he gets the same reaction from a fall from the tallest tower? It is either sloppy or something more.

Because "glasses askew" is symbolic in Rowling's writing? Perhaps there is a pattern between "death", "dying", and "sleep".

That Harry looses and breaks his glasses under much less violent circumstances argues my (and M Pomfrey's & Wynnleaf's) point.

Does Harry lose or break his glasses under circumstances that convey peaceable sleep? I don't think so. I think that is the job of askew glasses.

Besides, where's the fun if we can't read into the clues Jo gives us?

Well, there is that!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 18, 2006 9:32 am (#260 of 1629)

The locket was open, but not broken.

That's true . Harry notices it's open, and thinks -perhaps- the fall made it open.

Harry reached out, straightened the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose and wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with his own sleeve.

This doesn't actually say 'askew'. It's probably not important. JKR doesn't say the spectacles are askew, she simply implies the spectacles were crooked, askew, whatever, because Harry had to straighten them.

I don't know what this means, if anything. Are we arguing that the AK didn't kill DD, the fall did? (Or rather, the hitting the ground part.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 18, 2006 9:36 am (#261 of 1629)

For the record Jo does not choose ALL of her words carefully. I can give you many examples where she did not. Remember the "Mark is cousin Evans" fans? That was not a careful choice. Neither was keeping Flint in a year after he should have left school, and having to explain it away by saying he failed. And in the newer editions of HBP, the number of OWLS Hemione got changes. Not every word is chosen with care. It couldn't be. Not with this many words!

Perhaps, though, the glasses are symbolic, in that Dumbledore did not fear death, but Harry feared Dumbledore being dead. His death has set Harry's view of the world askew.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 18, 2006 9:42 am (#262 of 1629)

Perhaps, though, the glasses are symbolic, in that Dumbledore did not fear death, but Harry feared Dumbledore being dead. His death has set Harry's view of the world askew.

Hey, I like that thought.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 18, 2006 9:45 am (#263 of 1629)

Askew, tilted, set out of kilter...you know what I mean. Harry always depended on Dumbledore. Now he has to think for himself. Jo did say he had to go it alone at some point, did she not? He could never really do that with Dumbledore around.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 18, 2006 9:45 am (#264 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 10:51 am

Are we arguing that the AK didn't kill DD, the fall did?—Journeymom

Not I. I'm just arguing that Dumbledore met Death without fear, and Rowling wrote the description of the body to convey that.

Perhaps, though, the glasses are symbolic, in that Dumbledore did not fear death, but Harry feared Dumbledore being dead. His death has set Harry's view of the world askew. --Die Zimtzicke

An interesting thought, and it is possible that the glasses have a deeper symbolic meaning than I'm ascribing them, but it is Dumbledore's glasses that become askew here, not Harry's. If symbolic of skewed vision, then it is Harry who straightens out Dumbledore's glasses so he can see straight again. So one could suppose that Harry was seeing straight and Dumbledore wasn't.

Ack, now I'm confused.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 11:16 am (#265 of 1629)

Not to beat a dead hippogriff, but, for me, the poetic images can't fly in the face of reality. Not to get too graphic, but DD would have been travelling (if I did the math correctly) approximately 51 miles per hour if the tower was about 90 feet high. Wouldn't his glasses need a bit more than straightening?

It could be that it was all written for the peaceful image, or it could be that there is more than meets the eye.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 18, 2006 11:17 am (#266 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 12:18 pm

Too late to edit my post above.

Thinking about the symbolism of askew glasses like that, there is also Dobby's throw-myself-from-the-Tower-if-I-get-it-wrong comment, plus the meaning of the Lightning Struck Tower tarot card, all of which aDDs up symbolically to Dumbledore having made a grand miscalculation.

I like hard and fast evidence better.

But, if I was only looking at the symbolic stuff, I'd have to conclude Dumbledore messed up and Snape is evil.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 12:28 pm (#267 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 1:29 pm

DIE

For the record Jo does not choose ALL of her words carefully. I can give you many examples where she did not. Remember the "Mark is cousin Evans" fans? That was not a careful choice. Neither was keeping Flint in a year after he should have left school, and having to explain it away by saying he failed. And in the newer editions of HBP, the number of OWLS Hemione got changes. Not every word is chosen with care. It couldn't be. Not with this many words!

True, but I would not compare minor mistakes, some about minor characters, with inconsistencies involving a major character.

From HBP, Will and Won't

He (DD) drew his wand so rapidly that Harry barely saw it..

This with his burned, dead looking etc. hand. This is a definite choice on Jo's part, and seems to put in question just how injured DD is.

Yet shortly after school starts DD has trouble using the hand to open a bottle.

He climbs slowly down the rocks toward the cave, but enters the water like a much younger wizard, then uses his 'dead looking' hand to find LV's magic.

So, which is it? Dead and frail, or useful and quite fast?

Is DD indeed slowing down, getting weaker, or was it a ruse?

BTW- If Jo wanted a peaceful, serene image for DD in death, perhaps she should not have blasted him off the highest tower!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 18, 2006 12:53 pm (#268 of 1629)

Not to beat a dead hippogriff, but, for me, the poetic images can't fly in the face of reality. Not to get too graphic, but DD would have been travelling (if I did the math correctly) approximately 51 miles per hour if the tower was about 90 feet high. Wouldn't his glasses need a bit more than straightening?

Yes, but would JKR have calculated the speed in which her character fell to the ground?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 1:30 pm (#269 of 1629)

No, but before I did I was sure it was fast!

The tallest tower and all....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 18, 2006 1:32 pm (#270 of 1629)

Is that like throw a Dumbledore and a rock and a feather, which lands first?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 1:37 pm (#271 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 2:40 pm

No, not which lands first, which is still wearing glasses?



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 18, 2006 1:44 pm (#272 of 1629)

Now that is funny. I should put that on the Out Loud thread. Good CAll T.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 18, 2006 1:48 pm (#273 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 2:50 pm

Sounds like a project for Mythbusters (a tv show that tries to prove or debunk urban myths). They just need to dress their stunt dummy Buster up in wizards robes, fit him with glasses, and throw him off a nine story building. Now, that would be fun!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 1:57 pm (#274 of 1629)

Mythbusters just did a test to see if the Indian Jones jumping out a plane with a raft would work. The dummy didn't do so well..not sure they had a complete head, never mind glasses. Don't recall how far the fall was.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Oct 18, 2006 3:49 pm (#275 of 1629)

LoL,T Vrana! So,with Dumbledore dead what do we think caused it?

I would rule out the cave potion and his "dead hand" because it would just be too coincidental to have him die from either of those things at that given moment.I believed Dumbledore when he said that Voldemort wouldn't want to kill the trespasser right away. As for the dead hand,As T Vrana mentioned earlier he used that hand swiftly and competently when needed be.I don't think the hand was killing him unless the "stopper death" theory is true and Snape unstoppered it which in order for Snape to be for the good I'm not totally ruling out that theory either.

If don't think a fall alone would kill him because we have seen him impede Harry's fall during the QuiDDitch game.I'm sure Dumbledore is very adept at wandless magic.

If that was a true AK which some have argued that it was,that it was written differently from other AK's for a more dramatic effect,which I'm not totally convinced, then I think Snape is evil and has been since Voldemorts return to power.

Also, I am still holding on to Dumbledore's not being properly dead YET.. Yes,I know what JKR said.

No matter which(AK,unstoppered death), Snape is responsible. Why?
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 276 to 300

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:06 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-
S.E. Jones - Oct 18, 2006 4:37 pm (#276 of 1629)

According to my brother (a.k.a. "the physics junkie"), if the tower was 80 foot tall, he'd have hit the ground just after two seconds (2.23 seconds) and would be going around 50 milers per hour. His glasses would fall at the same speed as Dumbledore's body, so there would be nothing that would make them fly off as he fell. However, the problem comes with the glasses not bouncing away from him once he hits. Now, the mostly likely scenario is that JKR didn't sit down and do the physics to see how fast he'd actually be going and so didn't write things accordingly. It could also be that Dumbledore had some magic on his glasses. We know that Harry's glasses have been enchanted so as not to break and so that rain doesn't stick to the lenses. We know that a fifty foot drop didn't break Harry's glasses (I'm thinking the "Impervius" charm Hermione used made them unbreakable, but I'm not sure), but then again Dumbledore did something to make Harry fall slower. Still, it seems that Dumbledore's glasses may have been magical themselves as he looks at Harry and Ron under the invisibility cloak through them, as if he could see the kids through the lenses, so maybe he's "Impervius"-ed them so they wouldn't absorb shock and thus not break....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 5:21 pm (#277 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 6:23 pm

I'm fine with the glasses not breaking. But, unless DD charmed them to his head, I would think they would have been dislodged on impact.

I'm not fond of the stoppered/unstoppered death theory. It would seem potions are antidotes to poisons or 'bad' potions, countercurses to curses etc. The idea that there is a 'fix all' kind of potion that can stop death is very unappealing.

Can't be the AK if Snape is at all good. Agree that that it is most likely not the potion in the basin. Still like, (yup, you guessed it) the idea that the lake water was Draught of Living Death (DOLD) and DD succumbed, finally to that. I know Jo says he's dead, but not sure if a DOLD induced 'sleep' counts. Or, as was pointed out earlier, Jo waited until she killed him off in Book 7 to reveal to the world he's dead, because in her mind, he is.

The problem I have with that second option is that she told us to get on with our mourning. Will she have us mourn twice? Actually, the fact that she told us to mourn at all leaves little hope. If DD is not properly dead, how far is Jo willing to go to make us think he is? Or is it that she wants us to go through mourning with Harry, and experience his ummmm, relief, joy, anger (?) that he is alive.

If he is properly dead, how to resolve the whole Snape thing.....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Oct 18, 2006 7:57 pm (#278 of 1629)

What I had understood about the "stopper death" was that it wasn't permanent,only a time giver. When I first heard Snape say "stopper death" I thought he was talking about a bottled deadly poison. We know less about "stopper death" than we know about Draught of Living Death, do we not?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 18, 2006 8:07 pm (#279 of 1629)

M pomfrey- Not really, I think. We know the Draught is a real potion. When Snape said he could stopper death, I assumed, as you did, it meant he could bottle a deadly potion. Otherwise, why not Stopper Death, like, Draught of Living Death.

From one who reads too much into things, perhaps, some are reading too much into this stopper death bit.

Just my opinion...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 18, 2006 10:27 pm (#280 of 1629)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 11:27 pm

So are we saying that when DD returned from his quest for the ring, he was so badly hurt he was gong to die soon anyway without the aide of Snape. He who could "put a stopper in death". So Snape made a potion to prolong DD life just long enough for the events of the cave. When DD came out the effects of the "stoppered death" potion were wearing off and the real curse that was afflicting him was coming back, and he was begging Snape to "please" kill him so Draco wouldn't have to do it, and DD wouldn't have to go through that kind of pain with Harry watching. So Snape perfromed a mercy killing on DD and is really good on the tower? saving both Draco from becoming a murderer and saving DD from the pain inflicted by whatever protected the ring, AND saving Harry from witnessing the effects of said protection sicne DD death may have prevented further effects to occur such as had happened with his hand.

So that means Snape was still good on the tower, but what was will all that running out of Hogwarts? He didn't kill Harry outright, so maybe he was executing a plan made by himself and DD, knowing that Draco was told to kil DD, and DD was going to die anyway from the rings ill fate. He halted Harry only long enough to escape with Draco to take him and Narcissa to safety; all the while allowing LV to think Snape had fulfilled the task set forth for Draco?

O.o Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  1242326132

I'm so confused, but it does explain a few things if that IS what really was going on on the tower.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 3:35 am (#281 of 1629)

I don't think 'the epitome of goodness' would ask anyone to commit a murder.

If there is a 'stopper death' potion, why doesn't everyone carry a bottle around? This potion worked for almost a year? Wouldn't everyone want an extra year to put their afairs in order? Who would decide when they stop taking it and die? Do we have any examples of a potion working against a curse? Its too convenient a solution for me.

I also do not believe that DD conveniently died just before the AK.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 19, 2006 3:49 am (#282 of 1629)

Not before the AK, the AK was done for those 3 reason.
# fulfill vow
# prevent Draco from becoming murderer
# prevent DD from appearing futile and weak against the rings curse in front of his students.

I am not saying it was the elixir of life from the Philosopher Stone. But what to we know about Snape's claim in PS/SS? "how to put a stopper in death". What exactly did Snape do that prevented DD from dying back then?

Had it not been — forgive me the lack of seemly modesty — for my own prodigious skill, and for Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale.

Snape is the potions master for a reason. If DD trusts him so well then why wasn't he given the DADA job long ago? Because he knew that Snape was best with potions. So why couldn't the exceptional Snape make a long lasting potion that stopped or slowed down death from something DD got afflicted with.

Not saying the green liquid in the basin didn't help the affliction along, but it is not immpossible, however improbable, that Snape could have managed a potion like that. Like polyjuice wears off, but can be renewed, as well as the elixir of life, why couldn't a potion to stave off unnatural death? Maybe DD drinking the green liquid or not having any of Snapes potion left was causing the affliction to spread again, and maybe even faster than it was meant to?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 19, 2006 4:44 am (#283 of 1629)

Not to beat a dead horse, but if Dumbledore had his glasses on and his hat fit tightly, it is possible that his hat kept his glasses secure.

I hate a tight hat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-
T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 5:15 am (#284 of 1629)

Snape says DD would not give him the DADA job for fear he would be tempted back to his old ways. DD would go to Snape because he is very knowledgable about the Dark Arts. It is the same reason Snape helped with Katie Bell. The curses afflicting DD and Katie were dark curses.

I would imagine Snape knew a counter curse for the dark curse afflicting DD and was able to stop its progression, not a fix it all potion that can stop death for a year.

The quote, I don't have it handy, about stoppered death seems to be talking about bottling death, Jo just uses three different words to say the same thing. Bit boring to say bottle glory, bottle fame, bottle death...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Oct 19, 2006 7:08 am (#285 of 1629)

T, What I meant about knowing more about the Draught of Living Death is that we have what Snape has told us,we know what it looks like, how to brew it and we know that there is an antidote.We don't know anything at all about "stopper death."

I also do not believe that DD conveniently died just before the AK. T Vrana.

I agree. But, I do think Dumbledore knew he would die. He had already passed the torch to Harry. Before the cave Dumbledore tells Harry not to worry because Harry was with him. After the cave Dumbledore says"I'm not worried Harry,I'm with you" as SE Jones mentioned on another thread(I thought that catch was brilliant,I never connected the two.)

As for Dumbledore sacrificing himself for Draco and or Snape, I don't think Dumbledore would choose to save Draco and or Snape over helping Harry save the Wizarding World unless Dumbledore felt that Harry was ready to conquer Voldemort. When Dumbledore told Draco that his mercy was what counts I think he was telling Draco he could strike him down if he chose. Draco, did not for one minute, have the upper hand.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 19, 2006 7:59 am (#286 of 1629)

The "epitome of goodness" did finally admit to Harry that he has to either kill or be killed, did he not? I think Dumbledore is good, but he still understands the end sometimes justifies the means in war and that came into play on the tower. He would probably understand resistance movements very well. I wish we knew if Dumbledore actually killed Grindlewald when he defeated him, or if something else happened to him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 19, 2006 9:04 am (#287 of 1629)

The epitome of goodness" did finally admit to Harry that he has to either kill or be killed, did he not? "

Yes, and while it's possible that Dumbledore could be wrong here, I do think it's significant that he didn't say, "vanquish or be vanquished".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 9:09 am (#288 of 1629)

DIE- Kill or be killed is different. Self defence. Snape killing DD is not the same. If the Vow works as we have been led to believe, and the vow was to kill DD, it would still not be self defense. Snape took the vow of his own accord and DD is not threatening his life. SNape acting on the vow is to save his own skin from a mistake he made.

The other argument is that DD asked Snape to kill him for all the reasons mentioned. I originally thought this possible, but wonder if some posters are right, that this type of assisted suicide of sorts does not belong in a children's literature.

Consider for a moment explaining to 10 and 11 year olds that DD, the epitome of goodness, most powerful wizard, etc., asked Snape to kill him. Picture the resulting convoluted explaination, that would make sense, but would fly in the face of what that child instinctively knows, one good character can't ask another good character to commit murder/assisted suicide. You and I understand why it might be necessary, but in this genre it doesn't fit.

The problem here is that we do not know enough. If all is as it was written, there were no surprises in book 6. Never before have we been told so early what would happen, and then it happened. So, either Jo made a big change, all the surprises will come in Book 6 part 2 (book 7), or things did not work as we think they did.

Devices Jo has put in place without enough information for us to pin her down, The Vow, The Draught of Living Death, The Task Malfoy was assigned, and perhaps The Weasley's Joke Shop back room. Not to mention properly dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 19, 2006 1:07 pm (#289 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 2:18 pm

Since we've talked a lot in this thread about DD possibly having done a lot according to a plan of sorts, I have developed a new theory for some of the events that night.

I think that in the argument in the forest, Snape may have worried that in taking "too much for granted," DD was creating plans that depended too much on perfect timing, other people doing just what one expects, etc. This makes more sense to me given the phrase "too much for granted."

DD did not attempt to reach Snape by the quickest means possible -- almost the opposite. Earlier in HBP, we saw Tonks send a Patronus message to the castle. This is a very secure way of messaging, but DD did not attempt it either in Hogsmeade or on the tower. Both times he instead tried to send Harry on foot to get Snape. Therefore, I think we can conclude that he was not attempting to get Snape by the quickest way possible -- so it was not for his health that he most needed Snape.

Further, when DD did go to the castle, he did not go directly to Snape (down toward the dungeons), but about as far away from the dungeons as was possible to be. The tower must have been 10 minutes or more from the dungeons. AND DD must have known there was an attack likely going on. If he was extremely weak and needed Snape so badly, it makes no sense to stop on the tower and then try to send Harry all the way through the castle to get Snape.

Just prior to the tower events, DD had stressed to Harry his trust of Snape. This makes little sense if DD intended for Harry to be the witness of Snape AKing him and carry word of this to the Wizarding World.

DD attempted twice -- in Hogsmeade and at the Tower -- to send Harry to Snape, but was not able to send Harry because there was no time. First, the Dark Mark appeared, and then Draco got to the tower before Harry could leave.

Still, even without Harry coming, Snape knew to go to the tower. His object must have been to reach DD -- not help or hinder any DE attack. And no one in the castle knew for sure that DD would be on that tower. Yet Snape went directly there without any stopping, asking questions, etc.

Based on these things (and other evidence previously mentioned by many), I think this may be what happened:

DD planned to end up on the Tower with Draco and Snape, and possibly other DE's. DD knew Draco would not AK him, and instead planned for Snape to do it. But he only expected Draco and possibly other DE's to see that happen. He did not plan for Harry to be there on the Tower.

DD wanted Harry to know that he trusted Snape and remember that as Snape followed Draco and the DE's away from he castle. Or, possibly, DD even may have thought that no one (other than LV's people) would even know that Snape was the one to AK DD.

If DD did not expect anyone, but DE's and Draco to know Snape did the deed, could he have expected Snape would be able to stay at the castle and help him through whatever he had been drinking? If no one but LV's people knew anything incriminating about Snape, then Snape could have stayed and perhaps even helped DD fake a death scenario.

But DD's plans had indeed taken too much for granted. What messed up the plan? Timing. There was no time to send Harry to Snape from Hogsmeade, because the Dark Mark had already appeared over Hogwarts. Once on the Tower, there was no time to send Harry to Snape because Draco got there first. DD had counted on the DE attack starting later than it actually did. Perhaps he thought that he could count on a certain amount of time following his being seen in Hogsmeade when he was leaving. But in fact, events moved more quickly than he thought.

In this theory, DD did indeed plan to fake his death. But he needed Snape to do it. That would have worked, if none of the good guys knew that Snape did the AK (in this theory, it's not a full and real AK). But since Harry was there, Snape had to flee the castle and was not there to help DD with any sort of antidotes (for DoLD? or stoppered death? or help with Dark Magic of the Cave?).

In this scenario, Snape's hatred and revulsion make sense, even while he does a faked AK. He knows that he's trying to follow DD's plan to fake his death, but also realizes that with Harry there (sees the two brooms and maybe some legilimency with DD), he can't stay to help with the faked death and instead must flee. He's thinking something like "I knew you were taking too much for granted and now I've got to go ahead with this plan that is already messed up and I can't stay to help you and you might die without my help."

IN SUMMARY: DD tried to fake his death, but the timing was off. Harry witnessed Snape "murdering" DD, therefore Snape had to flee instead of stay and help DD. Without Snape, DD died. DD did not die from the faked AK, nor from the fall which he broke on his own as he was still conscious. But he did die subsequently because there was no one to wake him from the death-like sleep he fell into once he got to the bottom of the tower. No one even thought to try and "wake" him, as everyone assumed he was completely dead from the AK and/or fall from the tower.

What do you think? Or was it just too confusing?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 19, 2006 1:48 pm (#290 of 1629)

Wynnleaf,

Awesome thought. The process works for me. As a stand alone theory this explains a lot for me why Snape didn't go after Harry while running away with Draco. It has always bothered me why Snape was so rattled with Harry about him being called a coward. With your thought I can see why Snape would react that way. "What me a coward? I just put my butt on the line to help Dumbledore and you call me a coward"? "The whole WW is going to be after me". Also as Harry was attacking Snape, Snape didn't really fight back, he just deflected Harry's curses. Basically leaving him alone.

Assuming you are right when Harry finds out that his presense cost Dumbledore his life, how do you think that will play out. He has such Guilt issues about that sort of thing. The other is knowing that it was going to happen why on earth would Dumbledore take a chance and have Harry with him that night to begin with?

Keep working it. I love the idea.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 19, 2006 2:14 pm (#291 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 3:16 pm

A little clarification...

In my theory DD tried to send Harry to Snape primarily to get Harry out of the way, and to signal Snape that it was time to join DD.

In this theory, all of the clues that we have that the AK wasn't real, or that DD was under the influence of DoLD, but was not otherwise weakened are all correct. DD was not particularly weakened except that he was getting very sleepy. The AK wasn't a true one. He didn't die from an AK or from a fall, therefore the closed eyes, slight blood on lip, glasses askew are part of an attempt to fake his death and the DoLD.

BUT, Snape was repulsed by what he was doing and hated doing it because he knew with Harry there he would not be able to stay and help DD. Therefore DD would be without anyone to wake him, give him an antidote or whatever. DD had to plead with Snape to do it, because Snape saw the suDDen aDDed risks and DD knew he didn't want to do it (he never did, but now it was worse with Harry there).

All the oDDities of the scene are aDDressed, but DD still ends up dead, because not everything went according to his expectations.

And this also explains the fact that some things clearly weren't going according to plan -- not being able to send Harry away in particular.

It explains why DD would try to stress his trust of Snape to Harry, even while planning for Snape to "AK" him -- because he never planned for anyone who could give evidence about it to see Snape do the deed.

Please tell me where this doesn't make sense. For me, I think it answers most all of my questions about the scene.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 2:27 pm (#292 of 1629)

wynnleaf-

I really like elements of this but have aproblem with the timing. DD hesitated in Hogsmeade, too weak to go on, but once he saw the Dark Mark he seemed to recover some strength. If he had a plan I think it involved waiting for the Dark Mark.

I agree wholeheartedly that DD wanted to get Harry to Snape. If Harry had gone before the Dark MArk, DD could have proceeded to the Tower alone to confront Draco.

Because Harry was still there, he took him with him, and then tried again to send him away. Harry would not have been able to return to the Tower brcause of the barrier. In this plan I actually wonder if DD put up the barrier to keep the Order from interfering. Not knowingthat Fenrir was going to be there, I think he owuld havebeen confident that the OOTP could handle the DEs Malfoy knew were coming.

The hatred and revulsion caomes from DD's plan failing to get Draco into the DD protection program, and forcing Snape to go DE full time. Dors the Vow require Snape to protect Draco form LV?

Harry was convinced if he could put Snape and DD together it would all be ok, and perhaps he was right.

Whether DD is 'dead' or dead is the question then.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 19, 2006 2:28 pm (#293 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 3:29 pm

I can buy wynnleaf's theory up to the end. I think, at the end, Dumbledore realized that his death couldn't be faked as too many things had gone wrong, and that, if he didn't die (as I still believe he still could've saved himself if he wanted to) he decided that he'd have to die for real or Draco and Snape would both die. I don't see this as an assisted suicide or an "the epitome of good" asking someone to commit murder. Dumbledore could've saved himself and chose not to, chose to let himself die to save others. I see this the same as Lily dying to save Harry as she could've saved her own life (by simply stepping out of the way) but chose not to in to hope that her child would survive). An act of sacrificial love isn't the same as suicide or murder. Alvan York (I know it seems off-topic but stay with me here) tried to get out of duty in WWI as a conscientious objector due to his religious beliefs (he didn't believe in killing, no matter the circumstances) but, during the war, decided that he'd rather go against his beliefs and kill if it meant that he friends would be spared from dying. I think this is a very similar idea, "I'd rather die than let others die". Almost all major religions have a concept of martyrdom (dying for one's faith) and of sacrifice (dying for others) and they make a distinction between suicide (which is considered a way of escaping one's own problems) and sacrifice. I also don't see any problems with JKR explaning this in her books as we already have Lily's sacrifice set up as a presedence. Dumbledore's act of love is even more "just" in my view, because he not only could've saved his life, he could've potentially taken the lives of the DEs on the tower, but still chose not to in the hope of saving Snape (from the Vow) and Draco (from Voldemort).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 19, 2006 2:42 pm (#294 of 1629)

I really like elements of this but have a problem with the timing. DD hesitated in Hogsmeade, too weak to go on, but once he saw the Dark Mark he seemed to recover some strength. If he had a plan I think it involved waiting for the Dark Mark.

I agree. In my theory, DD was hoping to get Harry all the way back to Hogwarts before the DE's showed up and put up the Dark Mark. But once he saw the Dark Mark, he knew they were already there in the castle and he had to move swiftly on to the tower, or he'd never be there in time for a confrontation with Draco.

Still, he hoped to get Harry away once they were at the tower, but Draco got there first.

It makes the primary glitches being in the timing. Draco and the DE's got the attack started well before DD expected it. Well, anyway, at least 30 minutes to 60 minutes before he expected it.

S.E.Jones,

For me, and many others, there were good reasons for why so many people thought DD faked his death. My theory is trying to account for both the evidence that many people think points to a faked death, and yet also account for DD actually dying.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 19, 2006 2:47 pm (#295 of 1629)

I see several major problems with your theory, Wynnleaf (sorry).

First off, it is convoluted and confusing. Not that I think that would stop J.K. Rowling, but it seems to serve absolutely no purpose but to get Snape off the hook by really maze-like means.

If Dumbledore was planning to end up on the Tower with Snape and Draco, then he would also have to expect Snape's Unbreakable Vow to kick in-- unless he didn't know about it. If Dumbledore knew about it then he also knew that Snape couldn't thwart Draco without dropping dead, and if Snape drops dead so much for the elaborate ressurection scheme.

Setting up the Order to patrol the school corridors and then somehow expecting that they couldn't possibly throw a monkey wrench into the charade is also really farfetched. They would have to be in on it.

Dumbledore took Harry up to the Tower with him. He could have left him behind, or sent him by broom to Hagrid's, or whatever. Dumbledore chose Harry as his companion that night.

Snape yelled "Avada Kadavra", and green light rushed from his wand and struck Dumbledore, and Dumbledore was blown off the Tower. If it is possible to fake spells and still have them exhibit such powerful effects, surely Rowling would have established that before hand. If you can provide an example to support your theory, that would help.

Did Snape know that Dumbledore had left the castle? The patrolling Order knew, and Dumbledore must have known he might need SuperHealerSnape again after the Horcrux hunt. If Snape knew Dumbledore was gone I see no reason to suppose he know Dumbledore was back. He should be assuming that Death Eaters were marauding through the school and Dumbledore was NOT there.

I assume Snape knew to go to the seventh floor because Flitwick told him to go there. From there, it's not hard to follow the sounds of battle (or ask one of the portraits for directions). Then he would find the Order trying to get up the Tower stairs, the DEs trying to defend the stairs, and maybe even evidence of the forcefield if he saw Order members or Neville trying to break through. I daresay Snape was looking for Draco, since once Flitwick told him what was happening he probably figured out that this was what Draco was up to, and he was bound to help or drop dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 3:20 pm (#296 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 4:26 pm

Thom-

The reaction to Harry calling Snape a coward has nothing to do with DD, I think. We have seen Snape in a towering, almost uncontrolled rage only three times:

1) In POA, in the Shrieking Shack,when talking about James, Snape rages at Harry that he's arrogant and just like his father who was too arrogant to realize he might be wrong about Sirius (this is personal for Snape, I think, as he had the life debt and tried to save the Potter's by warning DD someone close to them was a spy, and he thinks James didn't listen and got both himself and Lily killed, leaving Snape with a boatlaod of guilt and an unrepaid life debt)

2) After Snape's Worst Memory. James again.

3) After killing DD, BUT, they had just been talking about JAMES.

You dare use my own spells against me Potter? It was I who invented them--I the Half-Blood Prince! You'd turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, would you, I don't think so...no!



Harry dived for his wand; Snape shot a hex at it and it flew feet way into the darkness and out of sight.



Kill me then," panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only rage and contempt. "Kill me like you killed him, you coward--"

DON'T-- screamed Snape, and his face was suDDenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them-- "CALL ME COWARD!"

While Harry was talking about DD, I'm sure Snape was thinking of James. James is the only thing Snape ever totally loses it over.

SE- The difference between Lily's sacrifice and DD's would be that Lily was killed by the bad guy. DD, perhaps, by a 'good' guy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HR]haymoni - Oct 19, 2006 3:57 pm (#297 of 1629)

I thought Harry meant James when he said that.

He knows Snape was the one that overheard the prophesy. Snape tells Voldy and that sets him on his course of action to kill either the Potters or the Longbottoms.

Snape helped to kill James.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 4:06 pm (#298 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 5:10 pm

I thought Harry was referring to DD as it had just happened, and he was now wandless, just like DD.

Just before the quote I put above:

Snape closed in and looked down on him where he lay, wandless and defenseless as DD had been.

These are Harry's thoughts immediately before Snape reveals he's the HBP.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 19, 2006 4:47 pm (#299 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 5:48 pm

The difference between Lily's sacrifice and DD's would be that Lily was killed by the bad guy. DD, perhaps, by a 'good' guy.

Hm. Well, this is a difference (in my opinion of course). But if DD died from that AK, then I think there's a lot more. Lily had really no choice -- well, she did, but it wasn't what anyone would consider a viable choice. She could choose to let LV kill Harry, or she could try to save him and get killed. There is no way one could construe that as suicide, because Lily could not avoid that situation or choice.

DD, on the other hand, was well aware that Draco was trying to kill him, and was aware of Snape's vow. If he was working from some sort of plan that night (even if it went awry), he was making the choices to court death in the first place. He was placing himself -- by his choice -- in the dangerous position. After all, he could have put a stop to Draco's activities without it ever coming to what it did that night. So if DD planned in some way to sacrifice himself, it was a much more intentional death, and far more of a choice than Lily had. If DD planned to have Snape AK him (for real), then he committed suicide. He was not dying to protect Draco or Harry, since he could have forcibly removed Draco and protected him through other means. He may certainly have died to protect Snape, but it was still purely DD's choice, particularly since even if it was accidental, Snape got himself into the Vow problem.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 19, 2006 4:49 pm (#300 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 5:49 pm

Snape yelled Avada Kadavra", and green light rushed from his wand and struck Dumbledore, and Dumbledore was blown off the Tower" — Mrs. Brisbee

Yes but wasn't Snape also good at casting spells without words? What he yelled could have been after what he actually cast. So we don't know what he cast other than it looks similar to AKm and presumably killed DD to all onlookers and anyone listening below.

If it was spelled out that Snape cast one thing but yelled something else as he cast then that removes a LOT of mystery.

Maybe Snape was telling Harry that this is what happened on the towew but didn't go as he and DD planned.

"Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!"

Snape was reminding him that spells could be cast wordlessly, as he had just done to DD when he faked an AK with another spell; maybe one of his own that wasn't included in the old potions book.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 301 to 325

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:08 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 19, 2006 6:12 pm (#301 of 1629)

In reference to Dumbledore not asking anyone to use an unforgivable curse or to murder......I think when Dumbledore urged Draco to accept his offer to hide Draco and his family, and he said "they cannot kill you if you are already dead"......I think perhaps Dumbledore was speaking of his own situation. Snape couldn't kill Dumbledore if Dumbledore was already dead (living on borrowed time) due either to the potion he drank or the blackened hand (or both).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 19, 2006 6:20 pm (#302 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 7:30 pm

T Vrana --The difference between Lily's sacrifice and DD's would be that Lily was killed by the bad guy. DD, perhaps, by a 'good' guy.—

Yes, but he would still have been dying to save a "good" guy, and one who is still young enough to choose which side he's one (I think he chose by default when he didn't kill Dumbledore). I don't see who killed them as being important. The important part was that they both (Lily and Dumbledore) had a choise between saving their own lives or dying for someone else, and they both made the right choice, as I see it.

wynnleaf --If DD planned to have Snape AK him (for real), then he committed suicide. He was not dying to protect Draco or Harry, since he could have forcibly removed Draco and protected him through other means. He may certainly have died to protect Snape, but it was still purely DD's choice, particularly since even if it was accidental, Snape got himself into the Vow problem.--

I actually agree with part of your previously posted theory, that Dumbledore had planned one thing for that night and that things didn't go according to plan, but I disagree that he wouldn't have been dying to protect Draco. If he hadn't died that night, Draco would've been punished, he would've died as would his family. Dumbledore knew this and this was why he didn't interfer before that moment, as he explains on the tower. I think he intended to spirit Draco away to safety that night, but the other DEs got to the tower too soon and Snape came in and then Dumbledore knew that either Draco and Snape would both be killed (Draco by Voldemort and Snape by the Vow) or he'd have to die. I think he made the decision there on the spot but had at least mentioned it to Snape beforehand as a possibility. I actually see it as being even more "just" a choice than Lily had because not only could Dumbledore have decided to move away from the danger (as Lily could have) but he could've decided to retaliate. Why no mother would consider it much of a choice, Lily did have a choice and it is that fact that gave Harry his protection. Dumbledore also had a choice, and chose to save Snape and Draco, in my opinion. It still wouldn't make it suicide as Dumbledore wouldn't have been trying to escape a problem but a calculated sacrifice to save others.

Choices --Snape couldn't kill Dumbledore if Dumbledore was already dead (living on borrowed time) due either to the potion he drank or the blackened hand (or both).--

That is a very interesting thought!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 6:41 pm (#303 of 1629)

I do think who is doing the killing is terribly important from the perspective of children's literature. If Snape killed DD, he can't be a 'good guy'. If DD was able to defend himself, then he was also able to throw himself off the tower. I can't imagine that Snape would be punished by the vow if DD dies before Snape could kill him. So if DD was intent of sacrificing himself, he could have done so without Snape AKing him. Yet, wouldn't we all be horrified if DD pitched himself off the tower and committed suicide? I can't see how it is better to ask a 'good' character to kill him.

Understand that I completely agree with the idea that DD would sacrifice himself to save others, even Draco (stupid, pompous git). And, in a more adult venue, asking Snape to AK him works. But to children, and no matter how mature these novels become, they are children's literature, there are certain lines that can't (maybe shouldn't) be crossed. If Jo has crossed that line I'll be very disappointed. She knows there are 9 year olds reading her books. As the parent of a 9 year old, who has not yet read HBP, and who wonders if he should, I can tell you, he has a very clear sense of right and wrong, and I am certain this will fall into the "wrong" category. No matter what explanation I give him, I am sure he will conclude that Snape can't be good if he killed DD. And, honestly, isn't that how it should be for a 9 year old?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 19, 2006 6:51 pm (#304 of 1629)

Yes but wasn't Snape also good at casting spells without words? What he yelled could have been after what he actually cast. So we don't know what he cast other than it looks similar to AKm and presumably killed DD to all onlookers and anyone listening below.—shadzar

We have seen nonverbal spells. We have seen that verbal spells can do something different than they are supposed to do if the caster doesn't concentrate properly. However, I don't remember anywhere in the Harry Potter series where we see a witch or wizard verbalize one spell while intentionally nonverbally casting another. If anyone can think of even one instance, please post it.

Such a feat sounds like something Fred and George would revel in doing, if it were possible. It would be great for jokes!

Rowling just hasn't established that such a thing is possible.

If it was spelled out that Snape cast one thing but yelled something else as he cast then that removes a LOT of mystery.

I disagree. There's that pesky Unbreakable Vow to consider. Snape is supposed to help Draco with his task should he appear unable to complete it-- not attempt to thwart him from completing it-- or Snape will drop dead. Snape did not drop dead, therefore Snape killed Dumbledore. Having Snape cast something else creates even more mystery-- why is he still living?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 6:57 pm (#305 of 1629)

But this is why Jo holds all the cards. We don't know if the Vow works that way. Ron hasn't been a fountain of great info in the past, has he?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 19, 2006 7:01 pm (#306 of 1629)

The only thing that I can remember about the AK, regarding Snape using it is Bella's comment to Harry. You have to really mean it for it to work properly. I know she was speaking directly about the Cruciatus, but I seem to remember Moody saying something about all the unforgivables in that regard. So if Snape really didn't mean it, you would see the green jet shoot, but without any authority behind it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 19, 2006 7:12 pm (#307 of 1629)

Ron hasn't been a fountain of great info in the past, has he?--T Vrana

Yes, he has. He listens to his father and older brothers a lot, and can impart knowledge about the workings of the wizarding world. Were you thinking of any particular instances where he gave false information about magic, because I'm drawing a blank.

I'm not sure what the point of so blatantly misinforming the readers would be, either. Why would Rowling create the spell, then unfairly lie to us about what it does? It's not like we're misinterpreting anything here. The one source she gives us is just wrong? In my opinion, the whole Unbreakable Vow subplot would simply become a fizzled and pointless waste of space if that were the case. I think Rowling is more competent than that!

So if Snape really didn't mean it, you would see the green jet shoot, but without any authority behind it.-- Thom Matheso

And then it wouldn't have blasted him off the Tower, either! There was power behind that spell. And if he didn't mean it and it didn't work, there's still Unbreakable Vow to contend with.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 7:21 pm (#308 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 8:23 pm

Mrs Brisbee, no, I just have a general impression that he gets things a bit wrong at times. Then again, that is normally with deductions and feelings. But he was only 5 (?) when this happened. Can we think of when he was right?

The problem I have with the vow is that it sealed DD's fate (if that was the vow) in Chapter 2. This is unusual for Jo. Not pointless, it has a great number of readers convinced that Snape had no choice...

Not implying incompetence, just, ummmm...'tricksyness'.

(Apologies for the LOTR reference)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 19, 2006 7:38 pm (#309 of 1629)

Off the top of my head, Ron was right about the dangers of both the Mirror of Erised and Riddle's Diary (for the diary I remember him quoting his dad about not trusting something if you can't see where it keeps it's brain), he knew a bit about dementors and how they make people feel because his dad had to go to Azkaban one time and apparently Ron listened to his tale, he knew some stuff about dragons from Charlie and was able to identify Hagrid's egg. I'm a bit tired right now, but I'll give it some more thought and see if I can come up with other times Ron has given good information.

But I don't think Rowling will stray too far from the Rules Of Fair Play. I know she holds the cards, but think of it as 7 Card Stud: five cards up, two cards down. No, we don't know the two down cards, but we know from the five up what final combinations will be possible or impossible. If she switches one of the up cards, that's cheating. I agree, she can be tricksy, but for that she will mislead us, not cheat us.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 19, 2006 7:56 pm (#310 of 1629)

Ron was right about the mirror intuitively. Not from past knowledge. So score one for Ron on being perceptive. Harry was obsessed. I don't recall the bit about the diary. The dementors is a bit vague, dementors make you feel bad. By the time Charlie is off with dragons, Ron would be a bit older than when the Vow attempt took place.

I just have a major problem with the Vow because everything hinges on it and we really do not know, for sure, anything about it. If we accept the Vow at face value, the only surprise in book 6 is the HBP. All the rest was clear by Chapter 2. I have to give more thought to Ron before I can decide if Jo is being tricksy or if she is cheating.

Or perhaps if I am entirely wrong, and what happened, happened...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 19, 2006 9:11 pm (#311 of 1629)
Edited Oct 19, 2006 10:12 pm

<rant>

I must disagree with this whole "bad for kids" thing people are saying about 9 year olds reading the books. First the books were never intended as children’s books. These are not Teletubby books and some mature content such as death and all is to be expected. It isn't the writer's problem be it for books or TV to decide what the children understand or not. Neither is it for the MPAA or other "ratings" groups to decide. Rather than putting the fault with writers for their material, why not put the fault with parents who do not take active participation in their children’s lives to explain death and such?

Sorry, but just because something is animated, or isn’t pornography, doesn't always mean it has to be represented at the level of a kindergartener. Good stories such as HP can be intended for older audiences without such hard core situations as strong sexual content, or "Hannibal Lector" type killing. It is the place for parents to teach their children about these things. So stop blaming TV, and book authors for things children might read. Instead get these lazy parents to explain the situations within books to their children.

If the idea was DD was having Snape assist him in what looks like assisted suicide or blatant homicide, then that is what is in the story. Children can see/hear much worse things on the 6 o'clock news than is implied in HP. Death is a inevitable part of life and sooner or later these children must learn it.

</rant>

on subject...I like the idea that Snape even if he did cast AK was not killing DD since DD was most likely already in the final thralls of death from some earlier incident (cave or ring). But I do wonder about the "you have to mean it". Snape keeps claiming "I could do it you know", but does he WANT to do it enough for it to work? If he did want to do it, does it have to be out of malice? Would an AK work if someone was desperate enough and didn't want to kill the other person, but had to attempt the AK in order to save himself?

This would come to the prophecy and Harry/LV. Will Harry have it in him to cast AK if need be? Will it require premeditated murder to cast an AK, or just the momentary thought of wanting the person gone that might in turn kill you if they remain?

Does the AK require just "meaning to kill the person", or "wanting to kill the person"?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 19, 2006 11:13 pm (#312 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 12:18 am

--I just have a major problem with the Vow because everything hinges on it and we really do not know, for sure, anything about it. If we accept the Vow at face value, the only surprise in book 6 is the HBP. All the rest was clear by Chapter 2. I have to give more thought to Ron before I can decide if Jo is being tricksy or if she is cheating.--

Well, JKR doing things in a straight-forward manner, no tricks attached, would be the last thing any of us expect and thus a huge surprise.... You also have to consider that we're finally reaching the end of the series, which means more and more ends are going to be tied up and fewer and fewer loose ends left with each book. Many questions were answered in OP but a few questions were left too, more questions were answered in HBP with fewer questions remaining, and even more (hopefully all) questions will be answered in Book 7 with no questions left. We can't expect the same amount of unknowable elements/clues/mysteries/red herrings/what-have-you to be hiDDen in books 6 and 7 as were hiDDen in books 1-5.

As far as Ron goes, he's been our main source of information when it comes to the workings of the wizarding world. Hermione and Dumbledore are our sources of unquestionable knowledge, but the "street" knowledge of how the world works, what people in the world think, etc, comes from Ron. That aside, I thought T Vrana's comment was centered around the fact that Ron didn't give us very much in the way of knowledge around the Vow (could be wrong, though). We know that it's a big deal to take it and that you die if you don't fulfill it, but that's about it. It could be that that's all there is to it, or there could be more.

As for not see this sort of sacrificial love in a children's story, I have to agree with shadzar that these books are not intended as out and out "children's literature" (I started this line of discussion on the 'Genre and Writing Styles in HP' thread). We do know, straight from JKR, that the main themes of these books are death (facing it and dealing with it) and love. I think Dumbledore dying out of love for others goes right along with every theme she's put forth thus far in the six books we have.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 1:47 am (#313 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 2:56 am

When JKR completes a book and has interviews with children, as opposed to interviews with groups of adults, she makes it perfectly clear who her primary audience is. She didn't accept Scholastic as a publisher because her audience was adults. Of course it is primarily children.

S.E.Jones,

I didn't mean that DD's death didn't protect Draco. It did. But DD did not have to die to protect Draco. If he had desired, he could have forcibly stopped Draco and kept him from LV -- I don't mean on the tower, but long before. Of course, he made it partly about Draco's choice -- but that was DD's decision to do that. He didn't have to give Draco a choice at the cost of his own life.

Well, JKR doing things in a straight-forward manner, no tricks attached, would be the last thing any of us expect and thus a huge surprise.... You also have to consider that we're finally reaching the end of the series, which means more and more ends are going to be tied up and fewer and fewer loose ends left with each book.

I think we need to remember that one of JKR's favorite things are plot twists. She has said that and made it very clear. And she has plot twists in every book. In commenting on plot construction and twists, JKR said, "readers love to be tricked.." In fact, she has commented that books with excellent plot twists are her standard that she aims for. So no, I don't think she would write a straight forward plot line.

On the Vow -- obviously Draco failing with the necklace and failing with the mead didn't cause Snape to fall over dead. Draco getting sliced up by Sectumsempra didn't cause Snape to immediately die either. We don't know what exactly causes the Vow to work. We don't know if magic decides whether the Vow is fulfilled, or if the bonder does. Therefore we don't know if the Vow can be tricked. Ron was only 5 at the time he had his experience with an unbreakable Vow and he doesn't really tell Harry much of anything useful about it. If he had told Harry more, we would know more, too. And we don't. Readers make a lot of assumptions about the Vow, but we aren't really told how it works. People assume that DD couldn't have attempted to fake his death because then Snape would die. But that's purely an assumption, because we don't know how the Vow works. If the bonder is the one that has to be satisfied, then tricking Bella would satisfy the Vow.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 20, 2006 3:03 am (#314 of 1629)

She went with Scholastic because they put in the biggest big moneywise.

Actually, I think Dumbledore could've spirited Draco and his mom away that night without any problems with the Vow, however, I think when both Draco and Snape appeared on the tower that night and Amycus began "the boy doesn't seem able", I think Dumbledore knew the Vow's time limit had finally kicked in. I think it would've been triggered by Voldemort or one of his loyal DEs knowing that Draco couldn't complete him mission. As long as Draco didn't go face to face with Dumbledore, I think there was room to make something work without the Vow kicking. You are right, though, we don't have nearly enough info as yet about the Vow.

As for wynnleaf's previous theory:
I don't think we'll find out that Dumbledore faked his death (faked the AK, faked the fall, faked the broken limbs sticking out at oDD angles) just so he could die at the bottom of the tower because he didn't plan things through well enough. What would be the purpose in terms of the story and plot? He didn't have to just lay there at the bottom and die, there were ways around it. I doubt Snape knew Harry was on the tower, but even if he did, he could've told the other DEs to get out of there with Malfoy (or even kept Draco hiDDen somewhere at Hogwarts) and he was going to stay (remember at this point the Order still thought him on their side) and then ran down to Dumbledore. If he'd known about Harry he could've stunned him and still made it down to Dumbledore to let the headmaster explain everything later. So, I think he died when the AK hit him, plain and simple. I think the full repurcussions of his death will be the important thing, not the death itself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 5:26 am (#315 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 6:28 am

I think the question of whether or not JKR has written children's literature is important for what we guess will happen. When I say that they are for children, I don't mean that JKR writes something differently than what she would "normally" write, because she's writing for children. What I mean is that it looks like what JKR wants to write, and the way she "normally" writes, are books that work well for an audience of kids.

The idea that we could have a child who escapes from the confines of the adult world and goes somewhere where he has power, both literally and metaphorically, really appealed to me.

Sure, this notion could work as a book for adults, but JKR has written books that work well for children. It's notable that when she mentions favorite books, she generally mentions children's books or books for young people.

I don't think Book 7 is going to suDDenly deviate from the rest of her books. We're not going to suDDenly see sex in the books. And I don't think we're going to have JKR explaining to her audience of children that suicide can be okay.

“Children are reading them 12 times, or whatever it might be, and they really are starting to know the way my mind works.”

I think this is important. JKR knows that children read her books with extreme depth, and she feels her young readers understand her. On the flip side, she writes stories and themes that work well for young readers and that they can relate to.

JKR shows us murder, but not highly graphic. So far, only the bad guys are murderers. We have not seen a reformed character who we are told used to be a murderer. We aren't shown any kind of sexual situation that is particularly questionable from practically anyone's viewpoint.

All it takes is a brief period of time reading even the best written of fan fiction to see the clear difference between the way JKR writes, and those fan writers who take her characters and put a more "adult" spin on the plots (and I don't necessarily mean sexual situations).

Every time an HP book comes out, JKR does reading for kids, interviews with kids, and even her extensive interviews with fan sites last year used Mugglenet and the Leaky Cauldron -- fan sites started by young people. She didn't go to the Lexicon, even though she likes and uses the Lexicon. But her focus in terms of meeting her fans and answering their questions in interviews and such has been primarily (not exclusively) directed toward children and young people.

So no, I don't think we're going to see Book 7 tackle the question of suicide and make a case that the "epitome of goodness" could commit suicide and it be justified. Sacrifical deaths such as Lily's are different primarily because she really had no other viable options. If Dumbledore died due to his choosing to confront Draco and die by Snape's AK, it was avoidable and purely his choice, and therefore a suicide.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 5:45 am (#316 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 6:57 am

shadzar- RETURN RANT-

Note, I did not say the Jo's books are bad for kids. My daughter has read them all, and my son is now on OOTP. Death is not the problem, it is the manner of death that is in question.

By the way teletubbies is for pre-schoolers and completely unrelated to the subject.

These are children's books and can therefore take on many heady issues, but there is a line. Jo for instance said herself she would not include drugs and sex. You think the story of an 11 year old wizard is ADULT fare? Just because they are well written and taking on many heavy themes does not remove them from the realm of Children's literature.

I do not assume anyone will take responsibility for what my kids see, hear or read, I do that. Nor am I a lazy parent and we do discuss these issues. I can still express disappointment if an author includes a theme I think inappropriate to her younger readers. We do not even know if she did. It is my opinion she did not.

Next time you want to rant, read what is written first. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DEATH OR HP OR JO. I will be disappointed if a good character killing a good character is included.

Since we've seen each other in posts all over this site, I obviously do not have a problem with HP.

SE- Sacrificial death, again great and powerful theme, but not, IMO, at the hands of a character that may turn out to be good.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 20, 2006 6:17 am (#317 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 7:17 am

So even though I am 32 and like the books, then I am a child since it is children's literature?

That is what I am talking about. People call them children's books because of their own ideals. This is the exact age prejudice I am talking about.

Just because it involves an 11-17 year old or group thereof as the main characters doesn't make it children's books. Just because it doesn't have drugs and sex make it children's books.

Why do people always want to classify things based on age rather than quality or content? They are fantasy novels set with a high class than those that would include gratuitous sex, violence, language, and drug use. Then again Ron does have a mouth on him...but those things don't have to be included for adult oriented books either. Adult oriented books don't have to be bland, dull, sexual, or violent. That is basing quality content vs outlandish activities to be the only difference in being the readers age. Children maybe shouldn't, but all adults don't enjoy reading smut books. A good simple story about life and loss haas no age range. Just look at the books Chicken Soup for the Soul, which are for ALL age ranges.

Death is something very controversial in many areas and families. It is a device used to tell the story for Jo. If it furthers the story it shouldn't matter what the publishers think about it. Snape could have assisted DD by casting the AK. Whether it was homocide or suicide we will only know after book 7. It had to be one as it was clearly not natural causes. So either way DD died, it doesn't mean it was done for children, or for adults alone. It was done for the sake of the story.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 6:27 am (#318 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 7:29 am

There are many books that are very appropriate for children, and even written knowing that they will be primarily read by children, which are still excellent fare for adults. And perhaps the terms "children’s" or "adult" fiction are not really helpful. Many of my favorite books, including the HP ones, are books that my children love as well. Generally, the term "children’s" versus "adult" does not mean who will like the books, but whether the material is appropriate for children, or only for adults.

But there are also themes and topics that are generally avoided in books that are written for an audience that contains a huge percentage of children. JKR has done the same by avoiding many topics and plotlines that would make the books less accessible to children. Whether or not she did that on purpose, or whether she just loves that kind of book herself, doesn't matter. The fact is, she generally avoids certain topics that would, if she included them, make the books very difficult and inaccessible for many children.

Because that has been her practice -- for whatever reason -- I do not think we should expect to see her suDDenly change that practice and begin including plot lines which are not particularly accessible to children.

So even though I am 32 and like the books, then I am a child since it is children's literature?

That is what I am talking about. People call them children's books because of their own ideals. This is the exact age prejudice I am talking about.

I wouldn't exactly call it "prejudice." I am 47, and many of my favorite books are also found in children's libraries and I'd consider perfectly appropriate for my kids. There are other books which I love which are not appropriate for children. Whether you want to use the term "children's literature" or whether you thoroughly dislike the term makes no difference regarding the actual content. JKR's content has so far been appropriate for 10 year olds (yes, some people debate that, but most don't), and she has avoided content which would be most questionable for children. I assume she will continue to do so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


[Rose, Esther]Esther Rose - Oct 20, 2006 6:28 am (#319 of 1629)

Uhhh so, what really did happen with Dumbledore's Death?

I still say it is Professor Snape on the astronomy tower with the AV curse.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 6:31 am (#320 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 7:34 am

This relates to DD's death because some of us to not believe that certain theories regarding his death (particularly a suicidal death), are at all likely in a series of books that JKR has written which have always avoided topics that are inappropriate for children. The supposition is that we will not find JKR in Book 7 explaining to her 10 year old audience why it was okay for an "epitome of goodness" character like DD to commit suicide.

I may certainly be wrong about this. She may do it. But if she does do that, it will most likely be written in a way that relates to the 10 year olds in her audience. Because JKR knows very well, and seems to care, about the thoughts and feelings of her young readers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 20, 2006 6:36 am (#321 of 1629)

Audio Visual curse? Just kiDDing Esther Rose. I agree Snape did in Professor Dumbledore on top of the tower. As much as I loved him, he's gone and aside from a portrait or something else along those lines, isn't coming back.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 20, 2006 6:40 am (#322 of 1629)

I know she has said these aren't children's books per se, but didn't she start by telling the Harry stories to her own daughter (I thought I remembered her saying something like this way back when the books were just becoming big hits.) It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that she's always intended her stories to be multi-generation entertainment.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 6:59 am (#323 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 8:03 am

shadzar-

DD dying is not the issue. Death is not the issue. I would have stopped reading these ages ago if everyone lived happily ever after and sat around singing the Hogwarts Song.

The issue is whether, in this genre, good killing good is acceptable. It is Jo's story and she can do what she wants, but we, as readers can still be disappointed if we feel she has crossed a line.

I am older than you. I really enjoy these books. They are children's literature, but can be enjoyed by folks of all ages because they are well written, and take on real life issues, without sinking into the mundane of real life. They also take on bigger than life issues, an epic battle between good and evil.

There are many great works that do the same and which my kids can read (LOTR springs to mind) despite death, sadness, loss, evil, betrayal etc., because the theme remains good vs evil. I would not consider LOTR children's literature, but the genre remains safe for children because there are clear limits on what a good character and what an evil character can do.

Calling it Children's Literature does not take away from its quality, at all. As a matter of fact, I think it is a gift to create a work that is appropriate for children, and can be enjoyed by readers of all ages.

My son will read HBP. If I knew for a fact Snape killed DD, I may have him wait a little, or if the poor kid just couldn't wait, we would discuss his thoughts at the end. I would still be disappointed that a line was crossed.

If I were to walk into book store to grab a copy of HP, I would go to the Children's Section, though I think it may need to be in Classics as well.

With Snape we do not know if he is good or evil. Many of us tend to think he is flawed, but not, ultimately evil. Because we think this, we also think he could not have killed DD. It just fits the genre. I can't think of an example of any epic good vs evil piece, written with children in mind, and some not written with children in mind, that have a murder/suicide involving the really good character, killed by another character who is not evil.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 7:34 am (#324 of 1629)

With Snape we do not know if he is good or evil. Many of us tend to think he is flawed, but not, ultimately evil. Because we think this, we also think he could not have killed DD.

This is, in brief, what Salmon Rushdie said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 7:53 am (#325 of 1629)

There is the possibility that Snape's wounds do run too deep. DD, afterall, did not protect Severus as a student from the Marauders. DD does, however take Snape back when he returns. Could it be Snape's rage on the tower is the result of DD letting him down, yet again? Had Snape counted on DD to win this whole thing? Now he finds himself hunted and hated, and right back where he was 17 (or so) years ago?

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 326 to 350

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:10 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 20, 2006 8:12 am (#326 of 1629)

I started to go on about how Jo herself says that these aren't children's books, but that does not belong on this thread, so I won't say it.

T Vrana - I think that is exactly what happened. Snape now has to be the bad guy. He has to leave his cushy existence as a teacher at Hogwarts to go do who-knows-what for Moldy Voldy. Now the whole wizarding world hates him.

If that Potter brat would have just listened to him in the first place and studied hard instead of wandering the school at night, he could have finished off the Dark Lord when he had the chance.

But noooo....now Snape's reputation is ruined and it's all because Dumbledore didn't handle things as he should have.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Steve Newton - Oct 20, 2006 8:25 am (#327 of 1629)

Excuse me if I have missed some major ideas but killing is a mainstay of children's literature. At least fairy tales. The witch in Hansel and Gretel, the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood. The Wicked Witch of the East? in the Wizard of Oz(The movie, at least, I've never actually read the book.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 8:29 am (#328 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 9:32 am

Haymoni-

Oh, you can still go on about it. It relates. Jo may have said they are not children's books, because they are not limited to children. They are 'safe' for children (and I would argue, GREAT for children. One of my favorite messages, DD "It is our choices Harry that define us...don't have the book handy for the whole thing). But I think Jo has to admit they are read, and appropriately so, by children, and she still has to (I hope) hold to certain 'rules', that other classic epics hold to.

So, anyway, IMHO, if he did AK DD then he is a bad guy, not evil the way LV is evil, but selfish, self preserving. He will have to die in Book 7. Can he redeem himself in the process?

Steve- the killing is not the issue. All your examples are good killing evil. No problem there. Also no problem with evil killing good. Its the good on good killing that is causing all this commotion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 8:29 am (#329 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 9:34 am

Hi Steve,

We weren't talking about killing in general. The question was if JKR would try to justify either 1. a good guy killing a good guy for good cause or 2. a type of assisted suicide (DD orders Snape to kill him), in this series.

So, anyway, IMHO, if he did AK DD then he is a bad guy, not evil the way LV is evil, but selfish, self preserving. He will have to die in Book 7. Can he redeem himself in the process?

In another kind of book -- one that is not okay for children down to age 9 or 10 -- I would say that Snape could have killed DD at DD's orders, or to keep everyone else alive, or some other possibly justifiable reason and still be a good guy himself.

In these books, I don't think JKR would want to justify to a readership that includes a large percentage of children how a good guy could do that and still be good. Therefore, I tend to agree with the above statement. I suppose JKR could come up with an exception that might work, but I can't see any in the theories we've come up with.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 20, 2006 10:01 am (#330 of 1629)

Seeing as Dumbledore is 150 years old and has led a very rich and full life and realizes that there is more at stake here than living another 50 or so years, I really don't think that we can compare this situation to a suicidal act.

Dumbledore knows, believes - whatever - that Harry has to take out Voldy. He needs to make certain that this happens. If Snape has to kill Dumbledore to preserve his "spot" with Voldy, so be it. Whether this was a calculated, step-by-step plan or just a general understanding between the 2 of them really doesn't matter to me - Snape will be able to redeem himself in the end.

If Snape is truly evil and Dumbledore was pleading for his life, Snape can still redeem himself in the end.

Bottom line, he is a Slytherin and he is willing to do whatever it takes to save his own skin.

I think it will make a terrific story either way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 10:07 am (#331 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 11:25 am

I don't think DD was pleading for his life. Not his style.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 10:32 am (#332 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 11:37 am

Whether this was a calculated, step-by-step plan or just a general understanding between the 2 of them really doesn't matter to me - Snape will be able to redeem himself in the end.

If nobody minds, I'd like to get back to some speculation I had earlier in my longish theory.

Regardless of whether or not DD was trying to fake his death or not, if the events on the tower were more or less within a planned framework, I think that DD did not plan on Harry seeing Snape AK him.

I already mentioned the two times that DD tried to get rid of Harry, as well as it seeming oDD that DD would try to convince Harry of his trust in Snape while at the same time expecting Harry to give evidence to the WW that Snape was a murderer.

So -- I had wondered then if perhaps DD thought that he'd have a confrontation with Draco that would include no one other than himself, Draco, Snape and possibly some DE's. So if Snape AK'd DD, there wouldn't be anyone except bad guys and Draco who could give evidence against Snape. The DE's and Draco would run away (or Draco might go into a Wizarding Protection program of DD's), and Snape would be free to remain considered a loyal member of the Order. The Order could assume that DE's killed DD.

I think that the attitudes of the rest of the Order might support that. Everyone else that we see from the Order seems convinced of Snape's guilt in murdering DD. If DD had planned ahead of time for Snape to be publicly considered his murderer, wouldn't he have taken at least one or two Order members into his confidence?

I can see that Snape could still have a mission given by DD that no other Order members are aware of. But I don't really see why DD wouldn't tell select Order members that Snape was really on their side. It seems a good idea, even if Snape's mission didn't include sending info to the Order.

If DD did not tell any other Order members that Snape might have to AK him, yet that was still part of DD's plan, then I don't think that DD intended Snape to be exposed as a murderer. He might have intended him to do the deed (instead of Draco AKing DD and instead of Snape dying), but he didn't intend Harry to see it and have Snape publicly proclaimed a murderer.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Oct 20, 2006 10:50 am (#333 of 1629)

The problems I see with the theory are the following;

The theory is a little too complicated

He was not aware of how the Death Eaters were getting into the school/aware that that was what Malfoy doing apart from trying to kill him. The identities of the death eaters/numbers. How they were getting the information that he was leaving the school. Far too many possible factors to go wrong.

If Dumbledore cast some spell to keep the order out how come only death eaters could pass into the tower. Did he just expect Malfoy?

If he was so keen on sending Harry away to Snape why did he fly him up to the top of the tower when the dark mark was there.

Why did he stun Harry unless he wanted a witness. Was he going to get Snape to stun Malfoy/alter his memory to be that he killed Dumbledore.

I struggle with the thought that he died at the bottom of the tower. I struggle with the thought that Snape cast something that looked like AK but wasnt.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


[Havox, DM]DM Havox - Oct 20, 2006 11:30 am (#334 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 1:31 pm

Just a thought to throw out there.

Dumbledore was very old, but very astute. We know he did work with his old buDDy Nicholas Flamel on Alchemy. Any chance Dumbledore drank the Elixir of Life earlier in his life? Might explain why the AK shot him off the tower? Would and AK on someone who had drank the Elixir of Life kill them, or put them very near death?

Just thought I would throw a few gallons of gasoline on this inferno.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 20, 2006 11:35 am (#335 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 1:15 pm

T Vrana --So, anyway, IMHO, if he did AK DD then he is a bad guy, not evil the way LV is evil, but selfish, self- preserving. He will have to die in Book 7. Can he redeem himself in the process?—

You mean the world isn't split into Order members and DEs? That there are bad guys out there who aren't evil and who aren't in league with Voldemort? JKR has already shown us this idea, which isn't found in a lot of children's literature, if that's what you want to call it.

In most children's stories, like in most westerns, the good guys wear the white hats and the bad guys where the black hats and no one ever wears grey, which sounds to me what you keep referring to, but JKR hasn't done this as yet, so I don't see why she would start now. Yes, Voldemort wears his black hat with pride and Dumbledore his white hat, but Harry is not wholly good (as we see with him hoping Snape dies and him sometimes being petty and human-like), Draco is not wholly evil (his actions regarding getting DEs into the school and killing Dumbledore are quite sympathetic as he's worrying over his family's safety), Umbridge was absolutely horrible but we know she's not a DE (although many thought she must be, simply because her grey hat looks so dark), and Sirius was a member of the Order but is far from being a saint.

Rowling's characters are not all good or all evil, sometimes not even mostly good or mostly evil, but human-like, bearing many shades of grey, sometimes so many that we question which side they're truly on (Snape, Percy, Umbridge, Fudge, Mundungus, etc.) and I think this is quite intentional. I don't think she'll suDDenly try to explain away a suicide, but I think it's perfectly in line with her story and themes and rules of morality to show us another example of sacrificial love. She's said that death and love are her two biggest themes and if fits in with both beautifully.

She's also said that this is a story of good vs. evil and so she has a duty to her readers (no matter what age) to show evil and it's consequences (such as war) and their consequences (such as needless death). She hasn't pulled any punches when it comes to showing the casualties of war, that even the good can die young with no good reason behind it, that sometimes you have to be willing to kill or be killed for those you love and for what you believe in, why should she start now? I see why you keep calling it "children's literature", because she has never described anything that isn't PG or PG-13 rated, but the themes she's working with are very heavy and just because she can do it in a "child-friendly" way doesn't mean she's going to start talking down to her readers.

I think it rather short sighted to think that a nine year old won't understand if Dumbledore chose to die to save two people who may have a chance to redeem themselves in the future. Thus far, they've understood Lily refusing to move from in front of her child, Harry willing to hang onto Quirrell, even if it killed him, to prevent him from taking the stone, Harry risking his life by plunging into a cave with a large snake in it just to save a girl he hardly knows, Harry willing to die or lose his soul if he can save Sirius from a bunch of dementors, etc. Why wouldn't they understand this? It isn't deviating for the graphical content, the moral code she's given her works, or from what her readers can understand, no matter what age you assign them to.

Children can understand a great deal more than what you seem to be ascribing to them, and what they don't understand really doesn't affect them (see my post about Jane Yolen's Dragon's Blood in the 'Genre' thread). I know you don't think Lily had much of a choice, but she did, and chidren recognize that. There are mothers out there that actually wouldn't have stepped in front of their child, and children recognize that as well. Harry had a choice in the PS to leave and let Quirrell have the stone, children see that too, but they know that, in the end, he made the right choice to stay and risk dying for the greater good. The question over whether or not JKR crosses a line will only be known at the end as that will answer whether someone made the right choice or not. If good wins and Voldemort is destroyed in the end, then we will know that the right choices were made, that is how this genre works. We must wait until the epic is over to know what choices were right and what choices were wrong.

EDIT: After taking a ginger newt with some draught of peace baked it, I thought I'd re-read my post. I didn't mean it to sound quite as condescending as it does, or as snappish, so I apologize. I was simply trying to get thoughts onto the page that were going a mile a minute.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 12:46 pm (#336 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 1:54 pm

SE- I think you are mixing my posts with others, or I'm not being very clear.

I do not have a problem with DD sacrificing himself. I do not think 9 year olds have a problem with DD sacrificing himself. I do not have a problem with evil and its consequences. I do not have a problem with murder or war. I did not suggest Jo would or should talk down to her readers. I did suggest, and do suggest, that having a good character AK the epitome of goodness crosses, for me and others, a line, that is not usually (if ever)crossed in this genre.

Do you think a 9 year old could accept Harry AKing DD? Could he still be the epic hero? It has nothing to do with talking down to the reader, it simply isn't done. One of the things we enjoy in these epic good vs evil tales is that there is true good and true evil. If we want everyday run-of-the-mill good most of the time, realistic characters, who find themselves in a position that they have to do something really bad for the greater good, we go to other genres. But here we have ultimate good, not realistic good, ultimate good, and he can't be killed by another good character, IMHO.

Remember the 9 year old who melted Jo's heart and ruined her career? That child was having a tough time accepting DD was dead. Could you aDD to that that Harry was the one who did it? No way. Hagrid? McGonogall? No. Why? Because they are good. Snape? Sure, because he's not.

On not defending himself/committing suicide. I do not think it was suicide for DD not to defend himself, anymore than it was suicide for Lily to refuse to step aside. That was a murder. Even though it was likely she would die if she did not step aside, it still took the action of a really bad character to kill her.

Now if DD had thrown himself off the tower, that would be suicide. Would we think that acceptable for this series? I don't think so, even if it did let Draco and Snape off the hook. I don't think suicide of the epitome of goodness belongs in this type of story.

Sacrifice, yes, absolutely. Suicide, no. Good character kills the epitome of goodness, no. Flawed character gets himself in a bind and chooses to save his skin, sure.

Just my opinion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 20, 2006 1:12 pm (#337 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 2:15 pm

Harry? No, but he's set up to be the hero, Snape isn't. We're constantly given conflicting evidence on Snape's loyalties, his intentions, etc, which I think is very purposeful.

Maybe I'm the one not being very clear. I don't see Snape as being totally in the good camp, and I do think he'll redeem himself in the end. I think that redemption is possible because Dumbledore died for him. I don't see it as a good character killing the "epitome of goodness" (where on earth did we get that line of thinking?). As JKR has pointed out, not all those who are good back Dumbledore and fight against Voldemort and not all those who are evil back Voldemort and fight agaisnt Dumbledore. I'd say Snape, like Umbridge, fits into the latter category. I think he is a character who is constantly on the edge between being a good character and being a bad character (hence my previous rant about the shades of grey); as he is, we are constantly wondering if he's leaning one way or the other. He saved Harry from Quirrell, but the tries to get Sirius kissed by a dementor. I think the AKing of Dumbledore will be what pushes him securely into the "bad" side, and I think that is intentional. I think we will see a redemption of Snape is some way which will agin flip flop him back into the "good" camp. I don't think JKR will have to make this overly complicated for a nine-year-old to get. And, it is something you might see in an epic, in my opinion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 1:12 pm (#338 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 3:20 pm

I just had this funny image of DD sitting in his office, calling teachers in one by one.

Minerva, I need you to do something for me.

What is it, Albus?

I asked Severus but he refused. I need you to AK me.

What! I will not...

Minerva, please, it's for the good of the Wizarding World.

McGonogall's nostrils flare. "Absolutely not, Albus!"

DD sighs, "Very well, send Flitwick in..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 1:14 pm (#339 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 2:18 pm

SE- I think we agree. My whole point was Snape can't be one of the good guys if he killed DD. It doesn't mean he can't still redeem himself and do something that is good.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 20, 2006 1:17 pm (#340 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 2:19 pm

T Vrana --SE- I think we agree.—

Yes, we may very well agree at that. It wouldn't be the first time I've spent days arguing with someone to find out that we were agreeing the whole time. That's why some people keep telling me I need to be a lawyer, because I like the argue so much.

By the way, that "funny image of DD sitting in his office" was absolutely H I L A R I O U S!!! I laughed myself silly at the idea.

EDIT: Darn it, T Vrana, I'm not going to be able to keep a straight face all day now....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 20, 2006 1:47 pm (#341 of 1629)

I think that redemption is possible because Dumbledore died for him. I don't see it as a good character killing the epitome of goodness" (where on earth did we get that line of thinking?)."

Wow, those two sentences together are quiet a concept, and in simple terms your first sentence hints at the answer to your second sentence. Back at Easter time National Geographic came out with that article about the "Gospel of Judas". It implies that Judas did what he did on Jesus' orders.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Now, I do NOT think JKR intends for us to see Dumbledore as a Christ figure, dying for Snape and Draco's sins. But he is yet another of many wise, elderly mage-types (Merlin, of course) seen before.

Have we considered what the consequence of Dumbledore's death will be? The Order is left without a head. This is seemingly a victory for Lord Voldemort. The balance of power seems to have shifted to LV. Is DD's death going to benefit the battle against LV in some as yet unseen... well, metaphysical way?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 20, 2006 2:23 pm (#342 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 3:24 pm

journeymom --Have we considered what the consequence of Dumbledore's death will be?... Is DD's death going to benefit the battle against LV in some as yet unseen... well, metaphysical way?—

I had suggested before that Dumbledore dying for Draco and Snape may have passed some form of protection to either of them similar to the way Lily's death gave Harry a protection. I'd really like to hear any further thoughts, though. Did you have something specific in mind, journeymom?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 20, 2006 2:25 pm (#343 of 1629)

EDIT: Darn it, T Vrana, I'm not going to be able to keep a straight face all day now....



Straight faces are so over-rated anyway... Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  2752390508

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 20, 2006 4:25 pm (#344 of 1629)

Did you have something specific in mind, journeymom? No, not really! I like your idea, though.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 20, 2006 6:59 pm (#345 of 1629)

wynnleaf: I agree completely that something was planned and Harry was sent away from the tower to prevent him from being witness to it. DD didn't expect DE to be in the school so there is where the plan fell apart.

This is where the whole "assisted suicide" thing comes into play. Snape still had to carry out the plan even though he didn't know Harry was there. Maybe he was expecting Harry rather than Prof. Flitwick to seek him out and he suspected something had happened to Harry. But the plan was to make Draco and LV think Snape had killed DD if that was the task set to him. Since Snape knew Harry was "missing" he probably had to continue with the plan in an altered state. Allowing Harry to see DD live would have given LV via the scar the knowledge that DD was alive. Harry couldn't close his mind, and Snape was good at reading him. So it is easy to guess that Snape knew Harry was there even without DD making note of it to him.

For the greater good. Snape being good could have killed DD being good to further the plan. "It is our choices...", is often said, and this choice may have reprocussion still to Snape even if he did it for a good cause: save Harry, save Draco, save himself, save the school, save the other students, etc. But by DD not acting against Snape was it realy good killing good, or DD sacrificing himself. That is the moral dillema.

DM Havox: We don't really know much about the elixir in the story. It is possible DD was using it, but he himself said it had to be drank everyday, and the only remaing known to exist stone was destroyed 5 years ago. That leads to wonder what Snape means by "stopper in death". A potion to slow death, horcruxes, death in a bottle, elixir of life? What does he mean? We also haven't seen anything involving mixing potions internally yet which may have something to do with the green liquid and water in the cave. So I doubt DD was still taking Elixir of Life, but with him who knows?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 20, 2006 8:21 pm (#346 of 1629)
Edited Oct 20, 2006 9:24 pm

Maybe this illustration will help.

In HP fanfics, you often see stories where a loyal Snape, in order to keep his "cover" as a spy in LV's camp, has to do some awful things because he has to convince LV he's a true DE. So in these stories (some very well written), Snape may actually have killed innocent people while with the DE's just in order to keep his cover. The poor innocent people got killed for the "greater good" so that the spy could continue to bring important info out about what LV was doing and ultimately save more lives than the innocent ones that got killed.

I've seen that written numerous times by some talented fanfic writers who can do the drama of it very believably. And, in fact, in real life some very loyal people in covert operations have had to kill otherwise innocent people for the supposed "greater good" of their side of a war and to save lives of their own people. Totally aside from the morality of that, it has in fact happened. So it would be a realistic plot element, whatever one thinks of the ethics.

Do I think that JKR would ever show us that Snape, while loyal to the Order, had been forced to keep his cover as a DE by killing muggles while on some DE raid? No, I don't. Not because it couldn't be done believably, but because within the parameters of JKR's writing and the readership that she is aDDressing, I don't believe that she would present her readers with this ethical dilemma.

Similarly -- in fact, very similarly -- I don't think she's going to tell her readers that loyal Snape killed his leader DD for the "greater good," and that's okay because it helped the cause or saved other people's lives.

It's not because she couldn't write that believably. She could. I don't she'll do it because it crosses a line of ethical quandary beyond which she does not appear to be willing to go.

T Vrana (I think) was completely right to give the examples of McGonagall killing DD, or another Order member killing DD.

It's not that no other character could be faced with a situation where they had to kill one good person in order to save the lives of others. Scenarios could be written in which any of the Order members could be faced with such a problem. But I don't think JKR would go there.

When Snape got to the top of the tower, even if he was as pure as a the driven snow, he still had no better choice than to AK DD. If he tried to fight off the DE's, they would have killed him and then killed DD and possibly Harry, too, in the fire fight. If he simply turned and left, the DE's would still kill DD or perhaps get Draco to do it. So he really had no choice, but to AK DD.

It's not that JKR couldn't write a perfectly believable scene in which a very good Snape had to AK DD. But that would then present the ethical quandary that I am talking about. A good person kills their good leader for the "greater good." I no more think that JKR will have that than I think she'll show us that a good Snape had to kill other innocents in order to keep his cover for the greater good.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 20, 2006 11:24 pm (#347 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 1:27 am

The epitome of goodness" did finally admit to Harry that he has to either kill or be killed, did he not?" (Die Zimtzicke )

Yes, he absolutely did!

However ... from Book One, Chapter One: Dumbledore says, "Voldemort had powers I will never have." and McGonagall replies, "Only because you're too - well - *noble* to use them." Can we take from this that, to that point at least, DD has not used any darks arts? That he never would and doesn't approve of them?

He does answer in the affirmative in OoP when Harry asks, "so does that mean that one of us has got to kill the other one in the end?" Just as Die said.

If I believe what I read in PS that DD is too noble to resort to Dark Magic to defeat V during V's first reign - although he was more than capable of doing so, and was the only one Tom feared besides -, I can only conclude that he expects Harry to defeat Voldemort and vanquish Voldemort without using Dark Magic or the Unforgivable Curses (AK?). It's that old love-will-defeat-him thing again ("It is the power held within that room that you possess in such quantities and which Voldemort has not at all." - (DD), OoP, p.743, Raincoast). Which fits perfectly with that "epitome of goodness" label.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shadzar wrote: "This would come to the prophecy and Harry/LV. Will Harry have it in him to cast AK if need be? Will it require premeditated murder to cast an AK, or just the momentary thought of wanting the person gone that might in turn kill you if they remain? Does the AK require just "meaning to kill the person", or "wanting to kill the person"?"

Well, in OoP during the battle, Bellatrix does say to Harry, "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you boy? You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - righteous anger won't hurt me for long - ..."

I can tell you that Harry's hatred for Bella at that moment when he tried to Crucio her was as great and genuine as any feeling he will have in the future. She took Sirius from him, after all. Yet she still says that his "want to cause pain" is not strong enough. I think what she is saying here is that, as much as he wants Bella to suffer and even die, Harry does not have the inherent deep down evilness to successfully carry out the curse.

(Now I've gone and stirred up the potion. Ah well, it won't be the first time.)

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 21, 2006 4:00 am (#348 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 5:04 am

Laura W,

Very interesting post. Given what you said, don't you think that it would also be contradictory, or against character, for DD to ask Snape to truly AK him?

In my last post, I said: When Snape got to the top of the tower, even if he was as pure as a the driven snow, he still had no better choice than to AK DD. If he tried to fight off the DE's, they would have killed him and then killed DD and possibly Harry, too, in the fire fight. If he simply turned and left, the DE's would still kill DD or perhaps get Draco to do it. So he really had no choice, but to AK DD.

This may seem to contradict the rest of that post. But what I'm getting at is that regardless how much Snape appeared to truly AK DD, I don't think he really did. Either Snape was faced unexpectedly with the situation I outlined above and loyal Snape had no choice but to kill his good leader (which as I said is a direction that I don't think JKR would really go, no matter how much it appears to be so), OR no matter what things look like, Snape did not truly AK and kill DD on the tower. DD may have died, but no matter how it looks, Snape didn't kill him.

And on the "it's too complicated" argument -- JKR has used some very complex plots in the past, including Barty Jr's story at the end of GOF and Harry and Hermione's rescue of Sirius in POA was also quite complex. Whatever is going on between DD and Snape that night is almost certainly pretty complex.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 21, 2006 6:04 am (#349 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 7:11 am

Very interesting post.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Given what you said, don't you think that it would also be contradictory, or against character, for DD to ask Snape to truly AK him?

Yes, but ... Accepting that, one could then say that proves(?) Dumbledore did *not* ask Snape to AK him - in keeping with his character; but was, as it appeared on the surface, asking Snape *not* to do it with his, "Severus ... please" (mostly to keep Severus from damning his own soul, so to speak, and ending up in Azkaban for life). But that Snape killed him anyway; because of the Unbreakable Vow or another reason.

I know that isn't the direction you were taking the line of thought and, again, I haven't totally made up my mind about this whole issue; but someone who is convinced that Snape is still a really bad guy and that both the green light that came from his wand and the words he spoke was a genuine Avada Kedavra *could* see it this way.

Thing is that it is both out of character (based on specific canon examples) for Dumbledore to ask someone to perform an Unforgivable and it is out of character (based on specific canon examples) for him to beg for his life. Thus the quandary.

(goes off mumbling something about how my view of DD's character and behavior when it applies to Snape is accepted but my view of DD's character and behavior when it applies to Lupin is dismissed -- with big grin on my face)

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 21, 2006 8:29 am (#350 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 9:31 am

Thing is that it is both out of character (based on specific canon examples) for Dumbledore to ask someone to perform an Unforgivable and it is out of character (based on specific canon examples) for him to beg for his life. Thus the quandary.

I agree. It seems contradictory. I am supposing it to be a paradox. They are both true. Therefore -- as Sherlock Holmes might say -- eliminate the impossible and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth. DD wouldn't ask someone to AK him. Nor would he beg for his life. Therefore, DD was asking Snape to do something other than 1. "don't kill me" or 2. "kill me."

(goes off mumbling something about how my view of DD's character and behavior when it applies to Snape is accepted but my view of DD's character and behavior when it applies to Lupin is dismissed -- with big grin on my face)

Yes. We disagree on the extent to which we can know what DD would do. I think we have plenty of evidence to tell us that he wouldn't beg for his life, and a fair amount of evidence that he wouldn't ask someone to AK him. But I don't think we have a lot of evidence to tell us who he would or would not have kept close tabs on for years. That's no big deal to me, since we're certainly not going to agree on everything!
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 351 to 375

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:11 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 21, 2006 8:32 am (#351 of 1629)

Isn't it funny with all the other recent things like the "Snape wasn't under the cloak on the night the Potter's died" in response to the NAQ theories, that JKR hasn't come forward and shot down the idea DD asked someone to use an Unforgivable curse on him?

Shouldn't she have by now seen, and wanted to squash this idea straight to the toxic area of her rubbish bin? But she hasn't done so yet....makes you wonder doesn't it?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Steve Newton - Oct 21, 2006 9:17 am (#352 of 1629)

Laura, I have given some thought to "from Book One, Chapter One: Dumbledore says, "Voldemort had powers I will never have." and McGonagall replies, "Only because you're too - well - *noble* to use them." To me there is a suggestion that he was not always to noble. I have also wondered about the 'noble' reference.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 21, 2006 9:22 am (#353 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 10:29 am

I keep going back to the possibility that Dumbledore had the Horcrux pendant around his neck and Snape actually AK'd that and not Dumbledore. It just settles the question (for me) of Dumbledore not asking Snape to kill him, but to destroy the necklace. Now we know that the Horcruxes have very powerful charms/spells on them to protect them and Dumbledore seems, in his wisdom, to be able to figure out just how to get around these protections or at least deal with them. Maybe the tower scene was an elaborately thought out plan to destroy the Horcrux while making it "look" like Snape killed Dumbledore. Harry was immobilized to keep him from interfering in the carefully planned events and messing things up. Maybe (or maybe not) the Horcrux killed Dumbledore - it was destroyed, but it's protections killed Dumbledore in the bargain. Maybe Dumbledore knew it would do this and maybe he didn't. We know that a backfiring AK can cause a house to end up in ruins, so maybe when the AK hit the Horcrux it cause Dumbledore to be thrown into the air and he fell - the fall actually killing him.

Hmmmmm......that's a lot of "maybe's". I just don't think that Dumbledore would ask Snape to use an unforgivable curse or to kill him, so there just has to be another explanation for what we saw acted out on the tower. It looked like one thing, but was actually something totally different. Our eyes deceived us and JKR will explain what actually took place in book 7. Wait, wait, wait.

Oh yes, and I think when Dumbledore sent Harry to get Snape (after they landed on the tower), I believe that Snape was to keep Harry in his office by immobilizing or stunning him somehow. That way, Harry would be safe and could not try to enter the fight and mess things up. Had he been free, he might have stunned or otherwise hexed Snape and then the plan would have been blown.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 21, 2006 9:39 am (#354 of 1629)

steve- I never read into this that DD had not always been noble. I had read it as more a little frustration on McGonogall's part for DD's being so noble. For some winning is more important. For DD I think remaining true to goodness is key. That is winning while remaining good. I think part of McGonogall was struggling for the right word and was tempted toward stubborn or some like term. With complete admiration, of course.

Choices- DD was clutching his chest on the tower. Hmmmmm. Horcux? Weasley shield?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


legolas returns - Oct 21, 2006 10:12 am (#355 of 1629)

Choices-I like the idea of the AK destroying the Horcrux and the rebounding curse/fall killing Dumbledore. I am not sure that Snape knew that Dumbledore would have a horcrux round his neck. If Snape did not know the intent to murder is there. If he did know then surely it is not classified as murder as it was a side effectof destroying the horcrux. Its an interesting theory *ponders*.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 21, 2006 10:31 am (#356 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 11:47 am

I think Snape had to have known, as it must have been part of Dumbledore's plan. I think that was what he and Snape were discussing that day in the forest when Hagrid heard them. Dumbledore knew he was taking Harry to find the Horcrux in the cave and would come back to Hogwarts with it. That is why he immediately sent Harry to get Snape, but Draco and the the DE's arrived before Harry could go, so Dumbledore immobilized Harry to keep him from disrupting the plan - Dumbledore didn't want Harry to jinx Snape and then Snape be unable to carry out his part. I think the real Horcrux was around Dumbledore's neck under his robes and when the AK hit him "squarely in the chest" it destroyed the Horcrux and (either the protections around the Horcrux or the impact of the AK hitting the pendant) caused Dumbledore to fly into the air and over the ramparts of the tower. I think if Dumbledore is brought back in book 7, it will be merely a replay of this scene and to explain what actually happened. Also, it served two purposes (maybe three) - it got Snape firmly in good with Voldemort and it destroyed a Horcrux. It may even have satisfied the Unbreakable Vow requirement.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 21, 2006 10:46 am (#357 of 1629)

I think there is a good chance that Snape knew about Dumbledore's plan. He has helped Dumbledore with a horcrux before, the ring. I have a hard time believing that he would just blast away at a horcrux around Dumbledore's neck, assuming that the intent was not to harm Dumbledore. Destroying the ring horcrux was very tricky business that nearly killed Dumbledore. He said the only reason he survived was because Snape helped. If that is the case, I can't see Snape just blasting away at the horcrux without first checking it out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 21, 2006 10:49 am (#358 of 1629)

I think it was pre-planned and perhaps there was some "mental" exchange between the two before the AK was fired.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 21, 2006 10:55 am (#359 of 1629)

I don't see how a mental exchange between the two of them would have done any good. Dumbledore didn't have any time to examine the locket and Snape's never seen it. If the intent was to destroy the horcrux and not hurt Dumbledore, I just don't think it would have played out like that. After the experience with the ring, they would treat the locket with caution. There's no way either of them could have really known all that they were up against.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 21, 2006 11:27 am (#360 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 12:48 pm

Choices --Oh yes, and I think when Dumbledore sent Harry to get Snape (after they landed on the tower), I believe that Snape was to keep Harry in his office by immobilizing or stunning him somehow. That way, Harry would be safe and could not try to enter the fight and mess things up.—

This point, I can definitely agree with as Dumbledore pointed out several times that Harry was far more important than him.

However, Choices, are you saying the RAB locket is the real horcrux? Or that Dumbledore had a second horcrux with him the whole time? I find this hard to believe. Dumbledore scooped the locket up and stuck it in a pocket of his robes. I suppose I could buy that Dumbledore intended the AK to hit a pocket (one over his chest) and destroy the horcrux, but, having a fake in his pocket instead, the AK killed him. Still, why would he resort to an AK to destroy the locket? He didn't AK himself to destroy the ring and he hadn't even had a chance, as juliebug pointed out, to examine the locket to know what would be needed to destroy it. Certainly, he could've read the traces of magic left behind and thus knew an AK was needed, but then we have the unlikely scenario that the RAB locket is the real horcrux, which I really don't believe.

I truly believe that Snape AKed Dumbledore on the tower. I understand the argument that a good character wouldn't kill another good character in this genre, but as I said before, I don't think Snape is securely entrenched in the good camp... yet. JKR has admitted that there is a redemptive pattern to Snape, that he may yet be redeemed, and I think that redemption will be possible because of Dumbledore's death. Harry was saved by love as a child, and because he's known that kind of love he can love now, despite everything he's been through with the Dursleys and with Voldemort. I think the love Dumbledore showed for Draco and Snape will come back to repay the good side in some way. The arguments about whether we could believe Harry or Lupin or any member of the Order AKing Dumbledore don't really stack up, in my opinion, because those characters have already been shown to be securely in the "good" camp (that's why I don't believe Lupin will suDDenly turn out to be a traitor, but that's for another thread). Snape's actions have always flip flopped enough to make him securely nuetral: he torments Harry, he saves Harry's life, etc. His motivations are always hiDDen (did he make the Wolfsbane potion because Dumbledore told him to or did he do it for his own safety or was it for the safety of the kids, did he try to get Sirius turned back over to dementors because he truly thought Sirius was dangerous or because he simply hated him, etc.). Even if you don't believe Dumbledore asked him to do it, it isn't unreasonable to believe JKR would have Snape do it, in my opinion. As wynnleaf pointed out (and I know, wynnleaf, this was the point you were trying to make) Snape didn't really have any other option when he went to the top of the tower. So, even if you don't believe he was asked, it isn't farfetched to believe he had to. The important question, in my mind, was did Dumbledore have to die or did he choose to? My answer, he chose to die out of love for two of his beloved students.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 21, 2006 1:57 pm (#361 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 2:59 pm

I agree, SE, that the RAB locket is what DD grabbed, not a real horcux.

Given what happened to DD with the first Horcrux, I don't think he would have risked injury to Malfoy and Snape who would be standing nearby when the horcrux was destroyed.

Why would DD have a second horcrux with the RAB note in it? That would leave Harry thinking he had another horcux to destroy.

I do question the throw- away line regarding DD clutching his chest. We assume it is because of the potion he drank, but recall what happend in the MoM when an AK hit a solid object, it took the blast and shattered. We also know that you have to mean an Unforgivable for it to work. ADD this to the Weasley's shield garments, which they admit will not shield from an AK. But would it provide protection from a half hearted AK? Would it blast DD off the tower rather than having him crumple as other AKs seem to do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 21, 2006 4:45 pm (#362 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 5:47 pm

One thing about DD finding a real locket horcrux and destroying it, but the other one being some sort of decoy (I think that's the theory) -- JKR strongly implied that observant readers would probably guess one of the horcruxes. I tend to take that as meaning the locket in 12 Grimmauld Place. I can't think of any other horcrux that JKR thinks we'd get if we were observant enough.

Choices --Oh yes, and I think when Dumbledore sent Harry to get Snape (after they landed on the tower), I believe that Snape was to keep Harry in his office by immobilizing or stunning him somehow. That way, Harry would be safe and could not try to enter the fight and mess things up.—

I had wondered recently if when DD sent Harry to Snape's office, Snape was supposed to stun Harry the moment he walked through the door. That could explain why a loyal Snape would stun Flitwick. I'm not completely certain that anyone stunned Flitwick (it was only Harry's assumption, after all), but if Snape did do it, it doesn't make much sense. Unless he was expecting it to be Harry coming through the door and fired off a stunning spell first thing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 21, 2006 5:03 pm (#363 of 1629)

Wynnleaf- She could mean the one that responded to the 'Accio horcux', in the lake.

Hermione says she heard Flitwick telling Snape to come, then a thump, so I think Snape had time to see it was not Harry.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 21, 2006 6:13 pm (#364 of 1629)

I can see the RAB locket as the target for the AK. At that point, no one knew that it was a fake, and Dumbledore asking for the AK from Snape could very well have been needed. I mean, how do you destroy a Horcrux. The AK curse seems logical to me. The fact that it was empty, then creating a rebound that sent Dumbledore over the parapets makes sense, as we have nothing concrete to go on either. It would certainly make the distruction of the Potter home more plausible to me as well, just as in the Ministry lobby.

Good job Choices. Lots to ponder here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 21, 2006 6:15 pm (#365 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 7:18 pm

Hey, I totally admit that I am grasping at straws here with this idea. It isn't even my idea, but it is the one that seems to answer the most questions for me. I have no clue why Dumbledore had the fake Horcrux in his possession, but I think he took the real one from the basin and at some point put it around his neck so that the pendant part containing the Horcrux hung down over his chest area. This is where the AK hit him - squarely in the chest. Now, whether he planned to leave the fake Horcrux (containing the note written by him) in the basin to replace the real Horcrux, or if he meant for Harry to find it, or for one of the DE's to find it and take it to Voldemort, I just do not know. Maybe he didn't realize how he would fly up and over the tower - perhaps he thought he would drop where he was after the AK and be in plain sight of the DE's and they would find the fake Horcrux in his pocket. Once again, I don't know.

What I do know is that what we saw happen is a lot more complex than we think. What we think we saw happen, isn't what actually happened. I, like so many others, am simply trying to come up with an explanation that I can live with until I find out what really happened. Only JKR knows and we will find out when she is ready to let us in on the secret.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 21, 2006 6:26 pm (#366 of 1629)
Edited Oct 21, 2006 7:26 pm

Fly in the ointment...does an AK kill a soul? It kills a body, but the soul then departs. A Horcrux isn't a body, just a continer for the soul. Without locomotion an item made into a Horcrux can't move on its own, that is why the diary possessed Ginny.

Very plausible and seems like a good answer, but something don't feel right about AK destroying a Horcrux. The ring was destroy in the ruins of the house (right?), so why didn't DD do the same with the locket in the cave?

Then again is could explain why Snape came in so handy with the ring...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 21, 2006 6:30 pm (#367 of 1629)

Then how do you destroy a Horcrux? It must be something destructive.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 21, 2006 6:42 pm (#368 of 1629)

Thom:

*That*, Detective, is the right question. Program terminated. — Dr. Alfred Lanning

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 21, 2006 6:47 pm (#369 of 1629)

Choices --Now, whether he planned to leave the fake Horcrux (containing the note written by him) in the basin to replace the real Horcrux, or if he meant for Harry to find it, or for one of the DE's to find it and take it to Voldemort, I just do not know.—

Okay, so you're saying Dumbledore is RAB? I think I may be confused here.... Of the possibilities you suggested, I could only see DD using a fake to replace the real one in the basin. He wouldn't leave it for Harry to find, because then Harry thinks he has one extra horcrux to find before he can kill Voldemort, a horcrux that, according to the above theory, would no longer exist. Why would he do that? He wouldn't want the DEs to take the fake to Voldemort either. Voldemort would know it's a fake and would gather that something may have happened to his real horcrux. This could cause him to go looking for his other horcruxes and to possibly move them to new locations, or even to create new onces if he realized that horcruxes 1-3 were gone. I don't think DD would want to take that chance, which is why I think DD has been so keen to keep his horcrux hunts quiet.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 21, 2006 10:55 pm (#370 of 1629)

I can't accept any theory that involves someone saying "___ can not happen in a children's book."

This series started out with a double murder and near child abuse. Plus, Jo did not start out saying she was a children's writer. In the May, 2004 issue of Movie Magic magazine she specifically said:

What I find interesting is that people call me a children's writer. When I started writing I had never thought of writing for children.

Anything can happen. We have no idea what the true auhtorial intent is here, unless any of you have gotten a private e-mail from Jo with the last book's ending in it, and not told us. LOL!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 22, 2006 4:31 am (#371 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 5:41 am

Die- Murder, child abuse and many other horrible things happen in children's literature. (Think Cinderella for the child abuse). It isn't that horrible things can't happen. The argument is whether it would be acceptable, in this genre (and forget childen's literature, go with Epic Hero) for a good character to kill DD. Could Jo have Hagrid, Harry or McGonogall kill DD and have it fit this genre? Jo can do what she wants, of course. This is speculation that she would not have a truly good character, such as those listed, kill DD. Therefore, Snape is not a truly good character.

And even though Jo never considered herself a children's writer, starting with an eleven year old who goes through all the pangs of growing up, orphan, abusive step parents, being famous, fighting with his best friends, worrying about fitting in, worrying about being seen with the 'different' kids, having a crush, first date, maturing and not worrying about what others think of his friends, falling in love.... kinda puts you in that category. That Harry also has to battle true evil and rid the wizarding world of LV during all this aDDs the epic hero.

Destroying the ring horcrux left DD terribly wounded. I don't think DD would have risked the safety of Snape and Malfoy by destroying it this way. And,as aleady pointed out a couple of times, there is not good reason to do this. Harry thinks he still has a locket horcrux to find.

If the RAB locket was hit by the AK, I think it would have shattered, like the statue in the MoM. If the real horcrux was detroyed, how will Harry learn this?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 22, 2006 6:17 am (#372 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 7:21 am

This is speculation that she would not have a truly good character, such as those listed, kill DD. Therefore, Snape is not a truly good character.

T Vrana, I think many of those using this argument are more saying "therefore, Snape did not kill DD," rather than "therefore, Snape is not a truly good character." But it's not solely the question of whether or not a truly good character would, in this hero epic, kill the epitome of goodness character. It's also a question of whether DD would order one of his followers to kill him.

Laura said:

Thing is that it is both out of character (based on specific canon examples) for Dumbledore to ask someone to perform an Unforgivable and it is out of character (based on specific canon examples) for him to beg for his life. Thus the quandary.

And I answered:

I agree. It seems contradictory. I am supposing it to be a paradox. They are both true. Therefore -- as Sherlock Holmes might say -- eliminate the impossible and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth. DD wouldn't ask [actually order] someone to AK him. Nor would he beg for his life. Therefore, DD was asking Snape to do something other than 1. "don't kill me" or 2. "kill me."

Die said: I can't accept any theory that involves someone saying "___ can not happen in a children's book."

I think JKR has made it rather obvious that in fact there are certain things that won't happen in these books. Basically, whether you consider them children's literature or not, they are staying in the realm of a sort of "general fiction" in that they are suitable for teens and pre-teens, and even children of 9 or 10. I think we can assume that won't change, and therefore that does place certain parameters on where the plot will go.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 22, 2006 7:25 am (#373 of 1629)

wynnleaf- I agree. There are a few conclusions we can reach if we believe that Jo is going to stay within the 'acceptable' limits, not only of the genres we believe she fits, children's literature as well as epic good vs evil hero, but also the limits she seems to have set for herself already.

1) There is an epitome of goodness, and he would not ask anyone to AK him.

2) A good character can't kill that epitome of goodness, so if DD is dead, Snape is not one of the good guys (though he may yet redeem himself, but will most likley have to die). Snape is either a DE all along, or a flawed character who acted to save himself. I like the second option better. Snape as evil wizard #2 is far from satifying given all the background we've been given.

3) If Snape is good, he did not kill DD.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 22, 2006 7:57 am (#374 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 9:00 am

A good character can't kill that epitome of goodness, so if DD is dead, Snape is not one of the good guys (though he may yet redeem himself, but will most likley have to die).

T Vrana, I agree with you on the rest, but just not this one comment. I think it's also possible for DD to be dead without Snape having killed him. I have a theory now that DD actually did want to fake his death, possibly with Draught of Living Death, but that the success of that plan depended on Snape being able to use a fake AK on DD away from the eyes of any good guys who could give evidence that Snape was a "murderer." If only DE's saw the AK, then they'd flee the scene and Snape could stay on at Hogwarts, at least temporarily. He could then give DD whatever antidote there was for DoLD and DD could be publicly dead, but secretly alive. However, because Harry stayed on the tower, he was a witness to the AK and Snape had to flee. In my theory, Snape used a fake AK and sent DD over the tower walls still conscious. DD brought himself down to the ground with the sort of cushioning spell he used on Harry once, and completed his fake death before succumbing to DoLD. When he was found by the staff and students, everyone assumed he was completely dead -- he would appear that way. But he was never given an antidote to DoLD. Ultimately, I'm supposing, DD actually died during the funeral when his body was entombed among the flames. The phoenix rising was in fact DD's spirit finally released from his body which had only just died.

I'm not too "married" to this theory and am perfectly willing to consider lots more theories. It's just that I think this could fit all of the clues we see that DD faked his death, yet also fit the idea that DD is properly dead at the end of HBP (something I don't think we don't actually know for certain, by the way, despite JKR's comment about DD being dead).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 22, 2006 9:05 am (#375 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 10:08 am

If I may just slip in and answer Steve 's post #352 here ...

The way I interpret McGonagall's comment in PS is that Dumbledore has never resorted to using the Dark Arts or at least has not done so to her knowledge. (Of course, something(s) might have occurred that she is not aware of.)

Other places where Jo makes this point, albeit not coming right out and putting it in plain terms:
# "Just because a wizard *doesn't* use Dark Magic, doesn't mean he can't, Miss Pennyfeather," snapped Professor Binns. "I repeat, if the likes of Dumbledore-" (CoS, p.115, Raincoast)
# " 'You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?' called Voldemort, ... 'Above such brutality, are you?' 'We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom,' Dumbledore said calmly ..." (OoP, p.718, Raincoast)

I think what Jo is telling us with that second bit in particular, way beyond the Horcruxes thing, is that Dumbledore does not need to resort to the Dark Arts or Unforgivables to win his battles. He is such a powerful wizard (ie - can become invisible without a Cloak, would be able to break out of Azkaban etc.) beyond all or most others - which is why he is the only one Tom has ever feared - that he could kill, vanquish, or whatever word one prefers, without having to use the methods used by the bad guys, although he is perfectly capable of meeting them curse for curse. He has made the life choice - that word again - not to sink to their level of evil to accomplish his aims.

I could be wrong, but that's how I see it at this stage in the series.

Laura
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 376 to 400

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:13 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 22, 2006 9:17 am (#376 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 10:18 am

Wynnleaf-

I agree that if Snape did not AK DD, and was part of a plan that just went wrong, he can still come out as a good guy.

I don't really like the idea that DD was 'alive' under Draught of Living Death and was accidently incinerated. DD deserves a great death. Doesn't he? The description was 'flames erupted around the body' and then disappeared to be replaced by the tomb. I am holding out a (small) bit of hope that the flames had more to do with creating the white tomb, and DD's still 'dead'.

We do have to wonder, as has been pointed out, who is not properly dead? Jo's explanation that when you are properly dead you can't come back, suggests that she knows someone will be 'improperly' dead. As of yet we have not had anyone improperly dead. We've had faked death (Barty Jr). So who is it?

I don't think it can be a new death in book 7. There's already enough to be getting on with. Sirius and Harry's parents have been ruled out. I would think it will be a major character. The two most likely are RAB (Regulus) or DD. And both of them visited the Cave. Hmmmmmmm....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 22, 2006 11:23 am (#377 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 12:27 pm

S.E. Jones - "Okay, so you're saying Dumbledore is RAB?"

I do think that he is because I believe only Dumbledore had the knowledge and magical ability to discover Voldemort's "secret". I don't think a 19 year old DE would have that ability. What on earth would cause him to even consider a Horcrux - where did he learn about them? Certainly not during his schooling at Hogwarts. Horcruxes are hardly common objects.

As to your not thinking the fake was meant for Harry to find because it would make him think he had one more Horcrux to find ..... I think it was probably Hagrid who cleansed and dressed Dumbledore's body for burial, and I think he found the destroyed pendant/Horcrux around Dumbledore's neck. I believe in book 7 he will reveal what he found to Harry so Harry will know that particular Horcrux is gone and he will more clearly understand what went on "behind the scenes" on the tower that night. A piece of the puzzle will fall into place for him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 22, 2006 11:39 am (#378 of 1629)

If Dumbledore is RAB, why was he so uncertain about what to do in the cave. He began nearly every statement he made to Harry with I think... It doesn't seem like he is very certain about what they will encounter. Wouldn't he be more sure of himself if he had planted a fake locket there.

Also, if Dumbledore had been there in the first place to plant the fake locket, why would he leave the real one there? Why would he go back and needlessly subject himself and Harry to all those terrible, dangerous protections? If Dumbledore was RAB and he really did take the locket why would he ever return to that place? There just doesn't seem to be a point? I just don't understand how it could work.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 22, 2006 11:46 am (#379 of 1629)

Why would DD call LV 'The Dark Lord" and sign the note RAB?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Oct 22, 2006 11:48 am (#380 of 1629)

The R.A.B note does fit Dumbledore's situation; that is, he seemed to know he wasn't going to be around much longer. But, I think there are too many problems for Dumbledore to have left the fake locket and the note.

Dumbledore told Harry he didn't know which horcrux they would find. True, he had good evidence that the locket was a horcrux, so he could have prepared a note, just in case, but to what point?

Dumbledore doesn't want Voldemort to know how much he knows about him and that he knows about horcruxes. And, especially, that Harry knows about horcruxes. Such a note would be counter to everything Dumbledore has been doing; he would not take the chance, slim though it might be, that Voldemort might check on his horcrux in the cave.

Dumbledore would not taunt Voldmeort; totally out of character.

Dumbledore would not sign another's initials.

Harry did not recognize Dumbledore's handwriting.



I do suspect, however, that Regulus (aka R.A.B) did inform Dumbledore about Voldemort's horcrux, that it was in a cave, but did so before he went to the cave to exchange it. Dumbledore said was looking for the cave for a long time. He had a good idea of the area of the cave from his visit to the orphanage, but it was Regulus that put him onto a cave in the first place.

I don't think we can tie Dumbledore's death to the R.A.B note.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 22, 2006 12:08 pm (#381 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 1:11 pm

Dumbledore did not plant the fake locket. He knew the real locket was there and he figured out how to get it because he knew Voldemort and knew his tricks. Dumbledore went to the cave with Harry, took the real Horcrux out of the basin, and later placed it around his neck. He was uncertain upon entering the cave because it was the first time he had been inside. He knew it's location, but had not explored it. He had the fake locket in his pocket as a decoy. Whoever (the DE's?) found it after his death would take it to Voldemort, who would read the note and discover that his secret (Horcruxes) had been found out. I think R.A.B. stands for something between Voldemort and Dumbledore and it would tip Voldemort off immediately as to who wrote the note - Dumbledore. The DE's would not know the real Horcrux locket (that had been destroyed by the AK) was around Dumbledore's neck and under his robes, but Voldemort would figure it out. I doubt the DE's know about the Horcruxes, so they would simply give Voldemort the locket and say they found it in Dumbledore's robes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 22, 2006 12:32 pm (#382 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 1:47 pm

When are the DE's supposed to find Dumbledore dead so that they can rifle through his pockets? If he thinks this will be happening soon, why would he allow Harry to come with him. I know he has allowed Harry to go into harm's way before, but I doubt he'd allow this. If he thinks there will be some time between his trek to the cave and his death, why bring the fake locket with him? Why did he not tell Harry that the real locket was around his neck?

If Dumbledore really did have a secret, mental conversation with Snape, and Snape was only trying to destroy the horcrux but accidentally killed Dumbledore, what was the purpose of the earlier, spoken conversation between the two? Why was Dumbledore making Snape promise to do something? I can't see Snape (if he is a "good guy") not wanting to destroy a horcrux.

EDIT: If all it takes to destroy the locket horcux is a well-aimed zap, why didn't Dumbledore do it himself before he got back to Hogwarts?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 22, 2006 12:56 pm (#383 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 1:57 pm

wynnleaf --DD brought himself down to the ground with the sort of cushioning spell he used on Harry once, and completed his fake death before succumbing to DoLD.—

So, what about all the broken limbs? The description of the body reads ...but for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping. "Strange angle" of limb is generally a description used to describe limbs that have been broken. I can't see DD softly drifting down to the bottom of the tower, breaking his own arms and legs, and then succumbing to the draught. Also, since we want to stay within genre, in hero epics the mentor figure doesn't accidentally die, he's usually killed by the main bad guy or in some way connected to him. That's what always gives the hero the kick he needs to destroy the big baDDie even though he's now alone and unprotected by the mentor figure. If we want this situation to fit within those genre parameters, Snape killed Dumbledore. If Dumbledore ends up dying while sitting at the bottom of the tower waiting for someone to show up with an antidote, what does that accomplish in the story? His death at the hands of someone the hero thinks a DE has already accomplished forcing Harry to focus on what lies ahead, to think more seriously (think of how calm he seems during DD's funeral versus the way he reacted after Cedric and Sirius's deaths), and has given him the desire to see Voldemort dead at his own hands. So, aside from it being a way to bring DD back for his usual wrapup at the end of a book, what does it actually accomplish in the story? We are Harry, do you really think JKR would use this death to push him and us to do something so monumental and then say, "oh, it wasn't that bad, he's still there"? Really, wouldn't you feel a little cheated after that? After going through everything in Book 7 with Harry? I would.

As for Dumbledore succumbing to the Draught because Snape had to escape with the DEs because Harry was on the tower with him, Snape could've stunned Harry and sent the DEs off, as planned, given the antidote to DD anyway and then let the headmaster sort Harry out. Why go through all that, just to make Harry think DD was dead? So Voldemort wouldn't be able to see inside his head and know? Dumbledore pointed out that Voldemort is hesitant to do so again after the pain it caused him at the MoM battle in OP. All in all, I can't really buy this part of the theory either.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 22, 2006 1:17 pm (#384 of 1629)

Choices- DD would not call LV the Dark Lord, IMHO.

SE- If DD's death was faked, K\keeping Harry in the dark makes sense. Harry needs to prepare hilself properly and no longer depend upon DD to save the day. Not defending the whole theory, just that there is a good reason for Harry to think DD is dead. We see an immense change in Harry once he knows DD is dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 22, 2006 1:47 pm (#385 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 2:48 pm

T Vrana --Harry needs to prepare hilself properly and no longer depend upon DD to save the day. Not defending the whole theory, just that there is a good reason for Harry to think DD is dead. We see an immense change in Harry once he knows DD is dead.—

Precisely, what purpose then would faking Dumbledore's death have? All it does is give Dumbledore a way to come back and say "had you goin' for a minute there, didn't I?" so he can do his usual post-ordeal wrappup. We are Harry's shadow through all this, if we have to grieve along with him and go through all the turmoil of hunting the Horcruxes on our own, etc, and then find out that Dumbledore was alive all along and there was nothing real about the grief that pushed us to do all this ourselves, we're going to feel cheated, and I think JKR is a better writer than that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 22, 2006 1:48 pm (#386 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 2:51 pm

As T Vrana said, I also don't care for the idea of DD dying in the funeral fire. On the other hand, there has to be an explanation for the phoenix and that fits in with the idea that DD tried to fake his death, but died anyway. It's not integral to my theory, of course.

So, what about all the broken limbs? The description of the body reads ...but for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping. "Strange angle" of limb is generally a description used to describe limbs that have been broken.

We have no proof that DD had broken limbs. Harry saw DD's limbs at an awkward angle, but that's super easy to stage without actually breaking limbs, so it doesn't get in the way of the death scene being faked. Now of course, if the narration actually described limbs in impossible angles without breaking the limbs, then that would be different. For instance, if the description was of a limb twisted completely around, or a leg obviously snapped -- well, that way we'd know that limbs were definitely broken. But simply awkwardly placed limbs? Easy to arrange without breaking anything.

On DD dying with a real, but destroyed horcrux on her person -- I like the idea of Hagrid seeing it and mentioning it to Harry, causing Harry to re-evaluate the whole scene. I still can't figure out a reason for DD to carry a fake horcrux locket, but the other idea was good.

Precisely, what purpose then would faking Dumbledore's death have? All it does is give Dumbledore a way to come back and say "had you goin' for a minute there, didn't I?" so he can do his usual post-ordeal wrappup.

Well, there's still the huge literary purpose of giving Harry a reason to hate Snape even more personally -- something JKR seems very satisfied to have achieved. So if DD had faked his death, we'd have a great excuse to Harry to hate Snape immensely, but when the fake was revealed it would exonerate the person Harry hated, causing him to reconsider his hatred in general.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 22, 2006 2:17 pm (#387 of 1629)

SE- As I said, I wasn't supporting the whole idea, just giving you a reason why Harry may have to believe DD is dead. He keeps getting himself into situations, knowing in the back of his head, DD is around to save the day. But DD knows LV will continue to pursue Harry, so Harry needs to properly prepare.

But there is more. With LV now trying to kill DD and using DD's students in the process, it makes sense for DD to fake his death to:

1) Get Snape in solidly with the DEs.

2) Create an over confident LV.

3) Get Malfoy off the hook. (depends on the vow and how it works)

4) Get Snape off the hook. (ditto)

5) Stop LV from trying to use students to get to him.

Now, from Jo's point of view, why?

I had surmised some time ago that DD saw in Harry the next Great Wizard. We know DD is rather old, but appears to be in fine shape. He won't live forever, of course, and will need a replacement. We know he defeated Grindelwald, and expects Harry to defeat LV. He would also know that evil will crop up again and again.

DD said at the end of OOTP something along the lines of putting Harry's happiness ahead of countless witches and wizards who may die, but that that was over. Maybe he wasn't just referring to LV, but to a lonely life as the WW's great wizard. He is teary eyed as Harry leaves his office. I believe it is possible that DD has bigger plans for Harry, bigger than LV, that LV may be Harry's test. After all, what will Harry do when it comes down to it? Do we know? DD thinks he knows and is happy to hear that Harry is his man through and through. But what if Harry is tempted? Not by power, but love. What if Harry had to choose between saving Ginny and killing LV? There are many other temptations and misgivings he could have. If DD is to leave the wizarding world in Harry's hands, he must prove he will give up everything for the WW. If Harry fails, DD will need to search for another replacement.

Or he may just come back to be Jo's voice. "Sorry you had to go through that. Good job."

Just a thought how it could work...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 22, 2006 4:07 pm (#388 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 5:12 pm

I had this whole rant typed up but I'm not going to post a word of it beyond: Having DD show up at the end to say "good job" kinda lessens the hero's victory.

I know people were expecting a lot of surprises with HBP (and the lack thereof may be why so many people were disappointed with this book as compared to others), but as this is the end of the series, we aren't likely to get too many things seemingly out of the blue. I keep thinking of how surprised JKR sounded to hear that sites were voting that DD would be the one to die in HBP and wondering whether there was a leak somewhere. I honestly don't think she intended the average person to see that coming, but I've found that the average member of this forum isn't the average person. We have such varied backgrounds, but the majority of us have a college education and a background, in some form or another, in classics and/or literature. Anyone who's familiar with the heroic epic knows DD had to die for the story to move forward and thus most of us saw it coming.

You know, it's funny how things can change our view of the possibilities in a story. I started thinking about my original stances on this argument just after OP came out, pre-HBP. We all knew DD would have to die someway in the end so that Harry could face Voldemort alone as that is the way the hero epic goes. Just after OP came out, we started discussing how this would happen and I originally argued (I can hear Madame Pomfrey woopig already) that Dumbledore might not die but be taken out of commission by the Draught of Living Death (I even suggested that Snape would be the one to give it to him and thus appear to be a loyal DE) or some serious injury. After reading things the way they happened in HBP, though, I had no problem with the way things were done. It all seemed to make perfect sense to me the way Snape AKed Dumbledore, the foreshadowing that preceeded DD's death, etc. All thought of any other circumstance (Draught of Living Death, etc) leading to his death seemed absolutely dispelled in my mind. Of course, there were other things that happened between OP and HBP, in my own life, that helped to change this view as well. My grandfather died around the time the book came out and I was dealing with his death as I was reading about DD's (this is also the reason I put the book down and didn't pick it up for a year). The thought that someone might come in and tell me "he's not really dead" after going through all that seemed horrible to me. I'd love to have him back, but to then know I'd have to eventually go through losing him all over again, to know the hole that was ripped into my heart could've been avoided, I just wouldn't have been able to bear it. Maybe this is why I'm so against the idea that I once put forth myself. Now, I would definitely feel cheated and hurt to know that Harry and I grieved together and it was all avoidable. JKR has said that one of the main themes of the books is death (facing it and dealing with it), not avoiding death. I now see anything beyond the AK as DD avoiding death, and the man who called death "the next great adventure" just wouldn't do that. That's my opinion and I'll throw it out there to do with as you will.

By the way, while digging through old posts, I found two things, one was the names of wonderful forum members who have now disappeared into the ether and who I hope will return eventually, and the other was a wonderful post by Ann regarding how she saw Dumbledore's death. As it was posted almost exactly a year before this thread was created, I thought I'd share it with everyone here:

Ann - Aug 8, 2005 11:43 am:
I've been resisting posting on this thread since I'd got about 300 posts behind--and I've only skimmed them, so I may have missed something--but anyway, here's my take on Snape after HBP:

He's Dumbledore's man, through and through. The parallelism with Harry is startling. Both Snape and Harry are ordered by Dumbledore to do something they don't want to do: injure Dumbledore to fulfill a larger goal. The difference is that we see the order in Harry's case, and we experience his anguish as he causes Dumbledore such agony by feeding him the potion. In the case of Snape, we have exactly the same situation, but we only see the action and his anguish. Harry sees his pain and anguish at what he has done as anger for being called a coward; but if you look at that passage again, you'll see that that was not what Snape started out to say; there's a dash in there. And Harry has just accused him of killing the wandless Dumbledore. Harry would of course have looked more compassionate to an outsider; he's not acting for an audience of DEs, and he doesn't have to summon whatever hatred/evil intent that is necessary to cast an AK (though it's actually the Crucio curse that were told by Bella has to be "meant" by the caster).

But what really makes the whole thing clear is the fact that Dumbledore would not beg for his life. Never. Remember, this is the man who said that "to the well-organized mind, death is but the next adventure" (or words to that effect). In SS/PS, Voldemort first says that Harry's parents died begging for mercy, and when Harry denies it he admits they "died bravely." Whose students were they? Who is the consummate Gryffindor? Dumbledore, die begging for his life? Never! Never. In JKR's world view, courage is the ultimate value; I can't believe she'd have Dumbledore die a coward.

Another argument for all this is the very minimal value Dumbledore clearly puts on his own life at this moment. All through the cave episode, Dumbledore is telling Harry that he is the valuable one, the important one. He won't even use Harry's blood to open the door. He doesn't see his life as important at this point, except insofar as he can dispose of it for strategic value in this important battle. He is tired. And, whatever that potion was, his begging there is clearly a preview of his begging to Snape "Don't hurt them, kill me instead." (or words to that effect). She couldn't have made the true situation any clearer without actually saying "Snape is truly on the side of the good."

And the whole thing makes strategic sense. If Snape had not killed Dumbledore, surely one of the other DEs, or even Draco, under their goading, would have. And what would have happened to Snape? He'd have died for failing to fulfil his vow. Dumbledore's a strategist, a chess player, and he knows that Snape, unlike the others, will use the prestige that murdering him will garner him in DE circles to fight Dumbledore's greatest enemy, the most evil wizard of all time. Would Dumbledore think that was worth it? Of course. In a heartbeat. Does anyone really believe that Draco could have disarmed Dumbledore if Dumbledore didn't want to be disarmed? That the wand flick it took him to petrify Harry would have prevented him from disarming Draco? I certainly don't.

And, finally, Dumbledore would trust Snape to the last, come heck or high water. Even if they hadn't argued it all out beforehand, as I think they had, as Snape walked towards him with his wand raised, Dumbledore would have been sure that Snape would do the right thing, whatever he thought that right thing was. Dumbledore trusted Snape. And he was right to do so. He would not beg him not to kill him, but, if he knew that Snape was reluctant to do so (and we have an account of their argument from Hagrid), I can easily see him begging Snape to do that, just as he begged when he took the potion in the cave.

This does not mean that Snape is not a nasty man, that he hasn't done horrible things, and that killing Dumbledore wasn't a terrible deed. But, at least in the last (and I suspect in much of the other two as well) he is acting evilly for a greater goal, and the greater good, with no concern for the (terrible) cost to himself.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 22, 2006 4:26 pm (#389 of 1629)

SE- That is exactly how I originally saw DD's death. It wasn't until after analyzing some of the oDDities, and wondering why we were led from point A to Point B so clearly, that I started questioning it. I was sure DD was going to die, and it fit perfectly when he did, and how he did.

You should have posted your rant! The good job bit was not part of the main theory. The main theory stemmed from my knowing DD had to get out of the way for Harry, but questioning if DD was dead (based on the oDDities). So I worked backwards. If DD was not dead, how could Jo make it work within the confines of epic hero. The only thing that made sense to me was that DD was a little more than he appears, and the HP series is only the first step in Harry's becoming a true hero. (Not that we'll see other books). After all, he had a rough time in the cave, forgot about fire. Then a tough time with Snape. How could this kid be the WW's hope? DDs boots are rather tough to fill.

It is not a theory I strongly support now, I am nearly resigned to the fact that DD is dead. I'm still irked by the oDD bits, though.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


journeymom - Oct 22, 2006 4:49 pm (#390 of 1629)

If Snape had not killed Dumbledore, surely one of the other DEs, or even Draco, under their goading, would have. And what would have happened to Snape? He'd have died for failing to fulfil his vow.

Of course we don't actually know what Draco's assignment was. But the common assumption is that Draco was to kill Dumbledore.

Snape promised to

# Watch over Draco as he attempts to fulfil the Dark Lord's wishes.
# To the best of his ability protect Draco from harm.
# Carry out the deed if it should prove necessary, if Draco should fail.

In this scenario, if Snape had not killed DD but Draco had, what would have happened to Snape? Nothing. The UV would not have been enacted. However, Ann is correct, if another DE had killed DD then Draco would have failed and Snape would, we presume, fall down dead. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Ann's post.

That aside, Ann summarized very nicely the same things I believe about Dumbledore's death.

I honestly don't think she intended the average person to see that coming, but I've found that the average member of this forum isn't the average person. Great point, SEJones.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-
T Vrana - Oct 22, 2006 5:36 pm (#391 of 1629)

SE- A better explanation of the full theory, if you are interested can be found at these three posts:

T Vrana, "-- Dead or Not? (1 Aug 2005 - 13 Sep 2005)" #104, 13 Sep 2005 10:20 am

T Vrana, "+ The Snape/Dumbledore puzzle or who sacrificed whom??" #384, 27 Aug 2005 10:09 am

T Vrana, "+ The Snape/Dumbledore puzzle or who sacrificed whom??" #408, 28 Aug 2005 7:42 am

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 22, 2006 5:47 pm (#392 of 1629)
Edited Oct 22, 2006 6:51 pm

Wow S.E.Jones - that was a great post by Ann. Thanks so much for bringing it here for us to enjoy.

As for the theory I posted a few entries back, I have no intention of arguing it's validity any further. It is merely my opinion and can be taken or left as anyone sees fit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 23, 2006 7:24 am (#393 of 1629)
Edited Oct 23, 2006 8:27 am

I just read something at another site that got me thinking. More evidence that Dumbledore intended Draco to try to kill him and did not want Draco stopped. And further, that Snape was a part of that plan.

When Harry talked to Dumbledore after Christmas, it appeared (not a certainty) that Dumbledore already knew about Snape's unbreakable vow. We learn at the end of HBP, that Dumbledore definitely knew that it was Draco who was trying to kill him.

Before Christmas, when Harry overheard Snape and Draco talking, Snape tells Draco about the Unbreakable Vow, but does not tell Draco that Dumbledore knows about it. Nor does Snape tell Draco that Dumbledore knew that anyone was trying to kill him, nor that Dumbledore knew it was Draco.

If Snape had truly wanted Draco (or at least Draco's mission) to succeed, wouldn't he have warned Draco that Dumbledore knew he was trying to kill him? Wouldn't he have told Draco that he'd told Dumbledore about the unbreakable vow? Yet Snape leaves Draco completely in the dark, still thinking that Dumbledore is totally deceived.

Draco's not knowing that Dumbledore is aware of his attempts on his life, only serves as a sort of encouragement to continue in his mission. Yet if Snape was a true DE, it would make no sense to not tell him because not telling Draco these things would serve to undermine him, making him unwittingly vulnerable to Dumbledore.

The fact that Snape did not make Draco aware of Dumbledore's knowledge lends a lot of support to the idea that Dumbledore wanted Draco to continue on his mission and ultimately to be in a position where he had the direct opportunity to kill DD.

But Snape must have realized that DD was allowing Draco's murder attempts to go forward. Therefore he'd have to know that if DD wanted Draco to have the opportunity to kill him, if Draco didn't do it Snape would have to either do it or die. So Dumbledore and Snape would have to discuss this, as the end result would be so completely apparent to both of them.

I know that many of you already think this, but I had never thought of these aspects of the plot as evidence for Dumbledore and Snape working together to allow Draco the opportunity to kill DD.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 23, 2006 9:03 am (#394 of 1629)

wynnleaf- DD trusts Snape completely. The news of the vow from Harry would not have bothered him. I'm sure he asked Snape about it later, but Snape could simply say he made the vow up to get info from Draco.

On the Tower when Draco mentions Snape's vow with Narcissa:

DD to Malfoy "Of course, that is what he would tell you..."

If we take this at face value, DD doesn't know there is a vow, he thinks Snape made this up.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 23, 2006 9:08 am (#395 of 1629)

Hmm, I've been assuming that Dumbledore knew of the Vow, but what you say, T Vrana, makes some sense.

**wanders away to contemplate how that would color events**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 23, 2006 10:46 am (#396 of 1629)

Even if Snape did not tell DD that the Vow was the real thing (and I think he did), he clearly didn't tell Draco that Dumbledore knew he was trying to murder him. Since that only serves to undermine Draco, it should make us wonder why (if Snape were a loyal DE), he'd not tell Draco.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 23, 2006 11:41 am (#397 of 1629)

I would like to think Dumbledore told Snape NOT to tell Draco, since Dumbledore was hoping to confront Draco at some point to try to convince him to leave the Death Eaters and go into hiding. If so, Snape didn't tell Draco on Dumbledore's orders, which implies loyalty.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Oct 23, 2006 3:46 pm (#398 of 1629)

I think we see why Dumbledore went along with Draco's attempts to kill him from his statements on the tower. Dumbledore was afraid that Voldemort would learn, via legitmency, that Dumbledore knew and would then punish Draco.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 23, 2006 4:59 pm (#399 of 1629)
Edited Oct 23, 2006 6:14 pm

Snape did tell Draco "Already you are suspected in having a hand in it."

Draco goes off on a rant, so Snape never actually says suspected by DD, but it can be inferred. Who else would Snape be talking about? If a student is poisoned, surely the Headmaster is going to get involved. So when Snape says Draco is suspected, I think it follows logically that DD either suspects him, or another teacher does and I would think DD would be in on these conversations.

On the other hand, when Draco accuses DD of not knowing it was him, DD says he was sure it was him and had Snape keep tabs on him. He doesn't say he knows because Snape told him.

So did Snape tell him?

One of the things that really makes me want to believe DD wasn't wrong:

Malfoy "He's a double agent, you stupid old man..."

I really, really hope this twit doesn't get the last word on DD.

Further hints that DD had a clue what Malfoy was up to. Remembering that he brought the guard inside this one night:

When Malfoy tells DD there are DEs in the castle, no surprise, and the following from DD-

You found a way to let them in, did you?

He could have said "How did they get in?" "They found a way in?"

If the emphasis is on found, DD knew he was trying, but didn't think he would succeed.

Later,

But you were saying...yes, you have managed to introduce DE's into my school, which I admit, I thought impossible..

I am reminded that Harry thought DD wasn't listening to him, and DD becoming perturbed that Harry thought he wasn't taking care of the castle. This sounds to me as though DD knew Draco had to get DEs into the castle, and was not concerned because he thought there was no way to do it.

And, again, it is said several times, including by Harry, that Draco did this, right under DD's nose. When DD 'admits' as much

..and, as you say, right under my nose.

I really do not think it is an admission, but a statement that Draco misses entirely. I think DD is really saying "This is my castle, my school, did you really think you could do all this right under my nose and I wouldn't notice?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 23, 2006 5:29 pm (#400 of 1629)
Edited Oct 23, 2006 6:31 pm

I especially agree with the last part of your post, T Vrana. I have always thought that Dumbledore was playing with Draco. Dumbledore knew, but he allowed Draco to think he had "pulled one over" on him.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 401 to 425

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:16 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Oct 23, 2006 6:33 pm (#401 of 1629)
Edited Oct 23, 2006 7:45 pm

I agree. Dumbledore was toying with Draco. He, I think, was stalling for time more than anything. One thing for certain is when Dumbledore said it was his mercy that counted I am sure he could have changed the whole tower outcome at any time. Dumbledore is dead because he chose to be.

Malfoy "He's a double agent, you stupid old man..."

That part made me so mad. How dare he talk to Dumbledore like that. Had I been there, I would have pulled a Hermione.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 23, 2006 6:50 pm (#402 of 1629)

m pomfrey- LOL!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 23, 2006 6:51 pm (#403 of 1629)
Edited Oct 23, 2006 7:51 pm

What if Snape had two Unbreakable Vows? What happens in the case of a paradox?

1. DD— must go into vow to always help and protect students at Hogwarts, and never tell anyone about it to repent from being a DE.
2. Narcissa– help Draco etc as in book

Since the one with DD was first, which takes precedent? Does a newer Vow override an older one, or does the older one prevent a newer one from being made that conflicts with it? Likewise what if the De entered into an Unbreakable Vow with LV when they joined… Then Snape was under 3 that could all have conflicting parts so what happens?

Darned if you do, and darned if you don't.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 23, 2006 7:06 pm (#404 of 1629)

I'm not sure DD would require a Vow. Trust implies choice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 23, 2006 7:21 pm (#405 of 1629)

I agree, I don't think Dumbledore would have gone for the whole unbreakable vow thing. Rightly or wrongly, Dumbledore trusted Snape. To ask Snape to take this vow would, I feel, be indicative of a lack of trust on Dumbledore's part. I think that Snape made a promise to Dumbledore and felt honor bound to fullfill it, but that is not quite the same thing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-
Thom Matheson - Oct 23, 2006 7:36 pm (#406 of 1629)
Edited Oct 23, 2006 8:37 pm

Back to the skivies, I had a roommate in college that was an absolute brilliant chemist and mathematician. He always had a nose in a book and was so focused, the thought of tossing a car into the lake at school was a complete waste of time as well as doing his laundry. He just didn't bother. I can see Snape so wrapped up in his work, the thought of changing clothes just doesn't enter his mind. Also, the idea of changing your briefs just isn't relative as there are no car wrecks. That's what my Mom said anyway.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 23, 2006 7:57 pm (#407 of 1629)

I agree too that Dumbledore would never had relied on an Unbreakable Vow, it's not the same as trust.

I always wondered whatever possessed Snape to take that Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa in the first place. Whichever side he's actually on, it just strikes me as a really stupid thing to do. And would he then go to Lord Voldemort or Dumbledore and say, "Guess what I did today!"?

So why would Snape do such a stupid thing, and how does Dumbledore not knowing about the Vow change how I've been looking at events?

Could Snape love Narcissa? Yes, I know it's unlikely. She's little more than that stock character, The Mother, and we know little about her. We actually know very little about Snape also, since Rowling prefers him to be an enigma. Only two bits of "evidence" (and I'm using the term lightly) support the idea: Narcissa manages to manipulate Snape-- who I assume to be an intelligent and wily guy under most circumstances-- into making the Vow wherein if he doesn't fulfill it he drops dead; and Harry and Lupin's discussion of Snape and the Vow is bracketed by the lyrics to that horrible love song by Celestina Warbeck, which ends when their conversation moves onto other matters.

So if Snape makes this Vow and doesn't tell Dumbledore, then that might explain the forest conversation between Dumbledore and Snape. Dumbledore wants certain things done, Snape knows he can't fulfill his obligations but doesn't want to tell Dumbledore why, so Snape just makes vague complaints instead.

Not sure it really helps much in any other way though. Sure it gives Snape a motive to do what he did besides being just plain Eeeviill. But do we really want the Snape story to go off on a tangent in the final book?

The other option is that Snape is Eeeviil, and made the Vow because he intended to go that route anyway-- though I still have a hard time seeing Snape let himself get locked into a course of action like that. And in this scenario, the forest conversation is then unexplained.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 23, 2006 8:08 pm (#408 of 1629)
Edited Oct 23, 2006 9:10 pm

Not that DD demanded a vow, but Snape was so upset at what he had done that he chose for it. Wasn't it his idea to do so with Narcissa and Bella?

Either way, what would happen if two vows conflicted?

Interesting things I find in some of my role-playing game books that are very similar to the wizarding world. One such i read today got me thinking about DD death scene. I have removed the game aspects of it to jsut bare ideas of how this item works:

The amulet is activated when the wearer suffers one particular attack form (and only that attack form) which would be sufficient to kill or wholly disable the wearer. At this point the magic of the amulet is activated. Damage sustained from the killing attack is wholly negated. The thief is at once made invisible. Lastly, a powerful programmed illusion is brought into operation so that the amulet-wearer appears to have been slain or disabled by the attack. This programmed illusion is both complete and dramatic–e.g., an amulet protecting against magical fire will show the victim as a burned corpse, complete with the smell of roasted flesh. Only direct, tactile checks or a powerful divination spell will reveal the illusion for what it is. — Complete Thieve's Handbook

Knowing that DD can make himself invisible at will, could he have used something like this to make it appear as though he had died and substituted a look-a-like in his place as he apparated away? The the look-a-like body or his own was placed where the tomb stands. As the fire burned he apparated away again and the tomb appeared. Both time he had a distraction to be able to apparate. Then he went and took Draco into hiding like he said he would.

I know this is a stretch and maybe far-fetched but just a thought. Also, since JKR said he ways dead it still seems that we are uncertain when, because she never said in that interview he died on the tower or at the base of it. Just thought it would be interesting to share this idea.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 23, 2006 9:42 pm (#409 of 1629)

Thom --Back to the skivies, I had a roommate in college that was an abolute brilliant chemist and mathematician. He always had a nose in a book and was so focused, the thought of tossing a car into the lake at school was a complete waste of time as well as doing his laundry. He just didn't bother. I can see Snape so wrapped up in his work, the thought of changing clothes just doesn't enter his mind. Also, the idea of changing your briefs just isn't realative as there are no car wrecks. That's what my Mom said anyway.—

You know, for unmentionables, Snape's undies sure do get mentioned a lot. You don't get greying undies because you forget to change them a few times and their getting a little on the disgusting side. You get greying undies when the actual cloth itself is getting old and is starting to deteriorate. That, and if you wash them with something new and black, but I don't think that's the case. I'm curious, Thom, were you trying to put this on this thread, or did you have another thread in mind while you were typing? I know this is being discussed on a couple other threads (the Snape thread, for instance) but I don't remember discussing it here and don't see it in the last few dozen posts.

shadzar, so you're suggesting there could be a device (amulet or what have you) that would absorb the AK and leave the wearer unharmed? I somehow doubt it. The way we've been introduced to the AK over the course of six books now, nothing can really shield you from an AK except a large object thrown in front of you (as Dumbledore did with the statue in the MoM battle). Otherwise, wouldn't everyone be investing in this rare artifact so as not to risk being AKed by a DE? Wouldn't Dumbledore have glued one to Harry's person by now to make sure someone doesn't do him in before he can get Voldemort?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 23, 2006 10:33 pm (#410 of 1629)
Edited Oct 23, 2006 11:34 pm

ok to try to simply D&D game rules and to allow people to understand this item, i will make it as simple as i can sicne i am not good at explaining things very well that doesn't have access to the game rules themselves…hopefully these will relate to HP universe and its magic as well.

A spell cast has several parts:
# caster
# target
# components (things used to activate the spell)

The item could be triggered depending on the interpretation by being actually hit with the spell, or even being targetted with the spell. The game figures in for only one type of attack. (WWW shield items just blanket protect the user. I have a hard time seeing Fred and George coming up with them on their own without some research into them since a shield charm is hard for a lot of wizards.) Now when triggered the item would begin its effects. The question would be when exactly and what triggers it. For the description provided the attack must be successful and hit the target.

as you said a large object throw in front of the target can negate or at least deflect an AK, likewise Lily's gift to Harry rebounded it. Now since the ancient magic blocked it, could not their be other ancient magics?

You wouldn't see someone doing what Lily did every day. But could someone in past times have created something powerful enough to work as a shield charm like the WWW that could prevent an AK.

considering an AK is probably one of the first magics learned/found, or something equivalent as one of the primal forces of nature. Life creation being more complex that creating death probably means why it hasn't been achieved yet. Also fire and other natural elements would have come during that early time of magic at its "creation". So since these modes of attack existed since the beginnings couldn't a mode of defense against them have been created?

AK has probably been refined over the years like many other spells. But would an item of more primal times still exist and its creation methods lost to the ages.

Not saying HP is exactly like D&D, but I must take all my concepts of magic from what I know, and we only have a loose understanding of the metaphysics involved in the wizarding world of HP, and the limits of magic therein.

As I said it is probably far-fetched, but as I read the item in the book it just made DD death scene pop directly into mind, as if it were written for it. That and the speculation DD was wearing the real Horcrux locket and that is what Snape Ak'ed.

We know so very little about artifacts in HP universe it seems like they are mostly reserved for mundane things, but forget that magic has deeper roots than the present, that we don't know what existed before the books as it hasn't been written up yet.

IF something like this existed, what would it mean in terms of the close future and beginning of book 7 to the characters and the events around DD supposed death from the tower?

(Hope that made enough sense with removing game terms to simple concepts of how the item works.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 23, 2006 11:38 pm (#411 of 1629)

I got what you were saying, shadzar, I just don't think anything necessarily exists that is known and would deflect the AK. The whole reason the AK is considered Unforgivable is because it cannot be blocked (except, as we see with Lily, with a human sacrificial shield). I had suggested on another thread that, just as the Unspeakables down in the DoM created a time-turner after studying time, there might be something utilizing love as it's being studied there too. I suppose something like this might do what you're suggesting, but I think JKR is trying to drive home the fact that you have to, well, almost have a human sacrifice for something like the AK to be deflected. You have to have someone love you enough to give their life for yours. I don't think we'll end up seeing something like that in a bottle, amulet, spell, etc.

What particular item were you reading about that gave you this idea. It's been a while since I thumbed through the Thieves Handbook, but I'd like to look it up. Or, did I miss that in your first post?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 24, 2006 2:50 am (#412 of 1629)

Amulet of Dramatic Death (didn't know there was any RPGers here. May not be in a 3rd edition book but is from the 2nd edition AD&D brown splat book)

I was under the impression they were unforgivable because they stole "life" from the target.

# Imperius— steals the right of free-will
# Crucious— steals the mind through pain
# AK— steals the life dierectly by ending it

I don't recall being "unblockable" any reason for being unforgivable…

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Saracene - Oct 24, 2006 4:17 am (#413 of 1629)

Sorry to backtrack, but going back to the question of Snape killing Dumbledore, I find it hard to see a way out of it. For me, the big hurdle is the Unbreakable Vow. I don't subscribe to a theory that Draco's task wasn't killing DD, or that it wasn't his original task. And though we don't know all that much about the Vow's mechanics, I think that at the very least there seems to be a certain ruthless simplicity at its core: you do what you've promised to do, or you die. And from the purely literary point of view, I think that when, at the start of the book, a writer puts her character in an arrangement that spells out a potential do-or-die situation in the future, that character -will- find himself in such a situation in the course of the book. So - regardless of how the Vow actually works - I have no doubt that the tower scene was the "third clause crunchtime" for Snape.

So for me the question is not really whether Snape killed DD or not, but whether JKR will indicate that there were mitigating circumstances/complications to the whole thing. What seems to me at the very least is that, had Snape not acted on the Vow, the situation at the tower (and school at large) could have spiralled into something very, very awful.

To be honest, the question of how all of this would fit into the children's series didn't even occur to me till I read other people's responses on the web; but then the books that I've read as a child were way bloodier and more cruel than HP, Smile

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 24, 2006 4:54 am (#414 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 5:57 am

So for me the question is not really whether Snape killed DD or not, but whether JKR will indicate that there were mitigating circumstances/complications to the whole thing.

As you say, we don't know the mechanics of the Vow. And I think that's partly where mitigating circumstances can come into play. We don't know, for instance, how the Vow penalty kicks in. Is it the Vow itself that has a mind of its own and sort of "knows" when the person involved hasn't fulfilled it? Is it the bonder who decides (in which case they could be fooled)? We don't know. If the first, why didn't the Vow penalize Snape when Draco first failed to kill DD? Or the second time Draco failed to kill DD? Or the time with sectumsempra when Snape failed to protect Draco from harm?

My point is that because JKR hasn't told us how the Vow works, she has plenty of wiggle room to have Snape do a non-working AK on DD and still not die. She, after all, gets to decide what the mitigating circumstances are.

What seems to me at the very least is that, had Snape not acted on the Vow, the situation at the tower (and school at large) could have spiraled into something very, very awful.

I agree that had Snape not done what he did (whatever it was that he did do), the situation would have become worse. The thing is, Snape could have used a non-working AK and accomplished exactly the same thing as regards getting the DE's to leave the tower and the castle, etc. The question of whether or not using an ineffective AK would kill Snape could, as I said, be part of whatever mitigating circumstances are attached to the Vow.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Oct 24, 2006 5:14 am (#415 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 6:15 am

Here are the clauses to the Vow, as spoken by Narcissa:

Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?

And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?

And, should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail... [...] "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" (HBP, Ch1, "Spinner's End")

I'd say the Tower scene totally blows Draco's cover and will prevent him from making another attempt. There are other Death Eaters standing there ready to do the deed while Draco waffles. So I agree with Saracene, this was the moment of do-or-die for Snape. For the other attempts Draco was left free to try again, and probably had a time constraint of until the end of the school year to finish his task.

As for protecting Draco from harm, that one came with a "to the best of your ability" modifier, so Snape isn't going to drop dead if Draco accidently slams his finger in a door. Once Snape arrived on the scene after the Sectumsempra, he did do everything in his power to protect Draco.

That's my take on it, anyway.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 24, 2006 6:24 am (#416 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 7:25 am

Yes, but we still have the major question of not knowing what brings out the penalty of the Vow. JKR has not told us whether the Vow sort of "knows" on its own, or whether it is the responsibility of the bonder to decide when the Vow has been completed or broken. Because JKR has not told us these things, and because it is just as possible that it is the bonder who decides, as the Vow doing it on its own, it is easily possible, within the parameters of what we currently know, for the Vow to be tricked.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 24, 2006 6:37 am (#417 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 7:45 am

Hmm. If this is a magic contract, and it works anything like the jinxed parchment, I think it enough that Snape-- who willingly signed onto the Vow-- is present when any of the clauses need to be attended to. I think it enough if Snape knows whether he is violating them or not. The magic from Bellatrix's wand did bind around him and Narcissa, so I'd say the magic is concerned whether he's following his promise to Narcissa, and not what Bella is thinking. The jinxed parchment didn't need to be in Marietta's presence to know she needed spots. I agree that Rowling has given us only sketchy information on the Vow, but I also think we need to extrapolate from what we already know about other magical contracts.

Edit: I'd say Narcissa laid a brilliant trap. The first clause prevents Snape from willfully ignoring Draco's actions, which I'm willing to bet is the usual loophole. That would mean Snape would get a pass if he honestly didn't know about something happening, but because of clause 1 he can't make himself ignorant by avoiding Draco. Clause 1 would certainly explain why Snape Stunned Flitwick and then rushed up to the Tower-- because he was looking for Draco.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 24, 2006 6:53 am (#418 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 7:55 am

I agree that Rowling has given us only sketchy information on the Vow, but I also think we need to extrapolate from what we already know about other magical contracts.

As far as I recall, we only have two other contracts to go by. One was the triwizard tournament, for which we have no clue what the penalty would have been for refusing to participate, or how that penalty would have been enacted.

The second is the hex that Hermione placed on the contract. The contract was not, in and of itself, a "magical contract." That is, if Hermione hadn't placed a hex on it, it wouldn't have been magical at all -- just a signed list. It's not like the group were all entering into some sort of typical magical agreement, in which part and parcel of the contract is a magical bond. No, this was contract (sort of) upon which Hermione decided to secretly place a hex. In other words, the way that this contract works does not necessarily reveal a template for how all magical contracts work.

And last, while we can attempt to compare the Unbreakable Vow to the secret hex Hermione placed on a contract, we really have been given no information in the HP series that there's some particular norm to the way all magical contracts work.

I'm not trying to say that the Vow needs the bonder to decide. But I am pointing out that JKR has in no way written herself into a corner about it. She has plenty of room to tell us later that 1. Draco's original mission was not to kill DD or 2. the Vow could be tricked because the decision is made by Bella. Either of those two plotlines could be used by JKR without the sense that she'd deceived the readers unfairly. And there may be other alternatives that could also be written realistically. But JKR has not put the parameters on the Vow that force her to write Draco killing DD, or Snape either killing DD or dying on the spot.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 24, 2006 7:21 am (#419 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 8:23 am

I think Rowling is a storyteller. She will lay out the parameters of what is possible in the storytelling, so that even if we are surprised by an event, we can backtrack and see afterwards that point A did lead to point B, then point C, etc., in a logical manner. If she only gives us minimal information on how something vital to the understanding of the story works, than that is even more reason to assume what little she has told us is True. If we only know a little about magic contracts, then I think we really need to take it at face value.

I realize she is writing these books and can have anything she wants work any way she wants it to, but I think looking back at how she has constructed the stories in the series should give us clues about how she will construct the denouement. I don't think her logic is always perfectly explained (The Portkey at the end of GoF being the prime example), but I truly hope that as a good storyteller she has given us the logical clues necessary to understand whatever it is she decides to do in the end.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 24, 2006 7:30 am (#420 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 8:31 am

Sarah, I am obviously lost in my thoughts and floundering in a sea of Potterisms. Please post this, actually lose it, to the thread and place it in the pile of better left unsaids. It really needs to go away. My attempt at humor has failed again. But that is why I don't do it for a living.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Oct 24, 2006 7:49 am (#421 of 1629)

I am still having trouble believing that Dumbledore is dead at the end of HBP. There are loose ends concerning Dumbledore. The jam question for one, and we have yet to see Dumbledore's transfiguration skills(which Shadzars post reminded me.) Yes ,he is dead now, but was he dead then. Also, why did Dumbledore bottle his own memory?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 24, 2006 7:53 am (#422 of 1629)

Perhaps Harry needs to know the answer to the jam question to open something.

Dumbledore uses candy for his office passwords.

Maybe knowing his favorite jam will open something else.

It does seem like a rather oDD thing for Dumbledore to tell Harry.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 24, 2006 8:30 am (#423 of 1629)

The Triwizard Tournament and the parchment created by Hermione were NOT like the vow Snape took, (as I see it) that seems to have led to the death of Dumbledore.

In the case of the Tournament, Harry was stuck, even though he didn't even submit his name, and was not eligible according to the rules that had been set. Harry had no choice in the matter. The same with the contract for the DA. The kids did not know what would happen if they broke it when they signed it. Snape seems to have at least known what he was getting into, and that it could lead to something as serious as having to kill his mentor.

And yes, even though the circumstances are a bit off-kilter, Dumbledore is dead to me. If he didn't die on that tower, I'll be horribly disappointed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 24, 2006 9:09 am (#424 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 11:16 am

wynnleaf- I agree we do not know enough about the vow. The magic involved in killing the non-compliant participant may be in place, but it may require Narcissa, the injured party, to invoke it. Or, as you mention, the bonder, to declare the vow unsatisfied. Plus, though I won't go into it here as it has its own thread, we don't really know what Draco's orders were from LV.

M Pomfey- I am struggling with the same thoughts. It is not so much wanting DD alive (though the WW is much more interesting with him in it) as feeling that there are so many little choices Jo made that seem to aDD up to "not properly dead".

But then, I can't imagine she has asked us to get on with mourning just to resurrect him. Would she do that just to keep the plot secret?

For those who feel it would be a cheat, and take away from Harry's heroic journey, (I know Jo said DD won't do a Gandalf, but), did it take away from Frodo, at all, that Gandalf showed up at the end, when Frodo is done with his task, but near death, to bring him back?

Jam, Draught of Living Death and Not Properly Dead all still need to be aDDressed, I think.

Fawkes always seemed to reflect DD's emotions. Was the Phoenix Lament DD's sorrow at having to leave Harry to go on his own?

We knew from the start Harry would have to go on alone, at some point. That does not mean DD had to die. DD realized at the end of OOTP, that he needed to stop protecting Harry and put him on the path to fulfil the Prophesy. Why, then, would we be surprised if DD faked his death to accomplish this?

DD was planning all year for the end of HBP. Preparing Harry. Finding Slughorn and using Harry to get the memory. Putting Snape in a position that would assure (perhaps) he would be gone at the end of the year, and now Snape is solidly into LV's camp.

I was struck by the power and confidence DD exudes in the MoM. Yet a few short weeks later, Snape is telling DE's that DD is getting old and weak, and was shook. It is my "big lie" theory and I think DD could have begun his plan the moment Harry left his office in OOTP. That is, get Harry ready, spread the lie that DD is getting old, embed Snape even further in LVs camp, fake DD's death.

Note that we have clues throughout HBP that show DD is not slowing down at all. The lie was planted, I think, to support the idea that DD was vulnerable.

Getting a bit long...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 24, 2006 10:32 am (#425 of 1629)

I was struck by the power and confidence DD exudes in the MoM. Yet a few short weeks later, Snape is telling DE's that DD is getting old and weak, and was shook. It is my "big lie" theory and I think DD could have begun his plan the moment Harry left his office in OOTP. That is, get Harry ready, spread the lie that DD is getting old, embed Snape even further in LVs camp, fake DD's death.

I was thinking about this earlier today and recalled that Snape starts passing along this notion of the "weak DD" even before he takes the Vow. Since we know that DD was not in fact weak at that point, and that the hand injury did not appear to inhibit him at all, what was the purpose of passing along this idea to DE's?

At the point where Snape is telling Bella and Cissy that DD is weak, he has not yet made the Vow, and one might assume that any plan he and DD might have made regarding Draco trying to kill DD had not yet been formed.

But I'm starting to re-think that. Why would DD want LV to think him weak even before Snape made the Vow?

At the end of HBP, it seems oDD that Draco needed a contingent of DE's to enter the castle, solely so he could take a shot at DD. Couldn't he have tried a well-placed AK on many other occasions, without a battle going on downstairs? And supposedly Draco shouldn't have known that the DD he confronted on the tower would be returning from drinking a bunch of cave potions and was succumbing to those potions. Shouldn't he have expected a powerful DD on the tower? Yet he goes up to the tower alone.

Except that Snape was telling people that DD was weakened. Why did DD want LV to think him weak? It would only encourage LV to continue to authorize attempts against DD's life.

It really sounds like DD wanted LV to make attempts on his life, or perhaps attempt some other daring plans, whether those involved Draco or not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 426 to 450

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:17 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 24, 2006 10:47 am (#426 of 1629)

Snape wasn't at the MOM battle.

Perhaps it was Voldy telling everyone that he had weakened Dumbledore.

Dumbledore shows up with this dead hand - perhaps Snape thought it was the result of the MOM battle.

Or... he's lying.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-
T Vrana - Oct 24, 2006 11:42 am (#427 of 1629)

Snape tells Bellatrix and Narcissa that DD is slowing down etc. Snape saw DD after the MoM, I would think, with his hand fine.

Wynnleaf-

If we assume a couple of things:

1) Malfoy was assigned to kill DD prior to Spinner's End

2) Snape knew

3) Snape told DD

4) DD had already decided it was time for Harry to properly prepare for LV by the end of OOTP, as he said

Then I find Will and Won't, very interesting. If we start with the fact that DD is just fine at the MoM, even tells Fudge he'll take him and his Aurors on again, and win, again, then Snape's statement to Bella and Sissy seems a lie.

Yes, I know he has since been injured by the ring, but, in Will and Won't DD uses his wand so quickly Harry barely sees it. Why would Jo put this in? Why not just 'quickly'? Why not gingerly since he has a dead looking hand and he's supposed to be so gravely injured? Why is that in there?

Also in Will and Won't, Harry questions whether DD will show up, but, of course, he does.

Then, DD makes sure he has Petunia's agreement that Harry can return at the end of the year. Why does he need to ask that now? Where will DD be at the end of the year?

Well, not properly dead, because he says to the Dursley's, "Until we meet again."

Clues from Jo? She picked the words. So many choices, and these are the ones she made.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weeny Owl - Oct 24, 2006 11:48 am (#428 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 12:53 pm

Dumbledore was getting old... JKR said he was 150 years old, and bit by bit we've seen him getting older.

Whether or not that even matters at the beginning of HBP, the fact remains that whatever he drank in the cave certainly didn't do him much good.

I still believe that whatever he drank was what killed him, and that he actually died in the cave, but the lake water temporarily revived him, and that he needed Snape to concoct an antidote.

That's why Snape isn't guilty of actually killing Dumbledore when the Avada Kedavra was cast, and that somewhere along the line it will be discovered that Snape is and always has been on Dumbledore's side.

Even if none of that pans out, there's still the fact that he was obviously injured seriously enough so that his hand continued looking dead the whole year.

JKR has said he's dead. That doesn't mean we won't see him again through portraits, Pensieves, and possibly chocolate frog cards, but she wouldn't lie about him being dead. There's no point in it. There are really no plot lines that would benefit from it except to prove her a liar. She's never outright lied to her fans before, so why would she start now? It makes no sense.

Well, not properly dead, because he says to the Dursley's, "Until we meet again."

Dumbledore did say he had watched Harry more closely than it was realized, so why couldn't there be something that Dumbledore can use to sneak into at the Dursleys' house? A portrait, maybe, or some other device, but it would be like JKR to scare the living daylights out of Dudley if something strange started speaking to him.

I can see JKR having Dumbledore make sure Harry can return BECAUSE of the hand. We saw only a hand, but who knows how far up that extended. He could have been dying all along, and fast wand work aside, that was a serious injury.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 24, 2006 12:03 pm (#429 of 1629)

Dumbledore says that Snape took care of him after the ring thing. But did he tell Snape exactly what had happened? Did he tell Snape that his reaction time isn't what it used to be? Did Snape infer that Dumbledore had, indeed, gotten injured somehow at the MOM battle and that resulted in him not being able to react properly to whatever it was that injured his hand?

Of course, it would be helpful if Dumbledore had actually told Harry the story of what happened, but perhaps that will be a question for Dumbledore's portrait.

And then I think Harry will ask Bill for help and that will force the movie people to actually cast him in HBP.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 24, 2006 12:08 pm (#430 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 1:09 pm

Weeny owl- Dumbledore was getting old... JKR said he was 150 years old, and bit by bit we've seen him getting older.

During the memory of LV returning to ask for a job, Harry notices DD looks about the same, perhaps a few more lines. That was DD at about 110.

In the cave, having spent nearly a year with the dead hand, DD moves into the water like a much younger wizard. Jo's choice!

In the cave he uses the supposedly dead hand to find traces of magic. Looks dead, but isn't. Why does Jo do this?!?

Well, can't deny Jo's saying he's dead is a bit of a problem...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 24, 2006 12:19 pm (#431 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 1:20 pm

Dumbledore says that Snape took care of him after the ring thing. But did he tell Snape exactly what had happened? Did he tell Snape that his reaction time isn't what it used to be? Did Snape infer that Dumbledore had, indeed, gotten injured somehow at the MOM battle and that resulted in him not being able to react properly to whatever it was that injured his hand?

haymoni,

If Snape is a loyal DE, and if he actually thought DD was weakened, then it makes sense for him to tell Cissy and Bella. On the other hand, if he's loyal to DD and he did think DD was weaker, he would not say so to Bella and Cissy, because that would undermine DD.

I think (assuming JKR is being consistent) we can say that if Snape is loyal to DD, then his comment to Cissy and Bella about DD being weaker is a lie.

In fact, DD does not appear at that time period to be any weaker. So it looks more likely that Snape was lying to Cissy and Bella. But why would he and DD want LV to think DD was weak? It seems that they already had a plan in mind even prior to Snape getting himself into the mess with the Vow.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 24, 2006 12:25 pm (#432 of 1629)

I really want to believe that this whole thing is a big set up between Dumbledore & Snape. I don't think that every single move was calculated, but I could see Dumbledore asking Snape to say that his reaction time is slower because of the MOM battle.

It also helps with the ring thing - Snape could let Voldy know that Dumbledore was injured at the MOM battle. Nobody needs to know that Dumbledore was Horcrux-Hunting.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 24, 2006 12:59 pm (#433 of 1629)

T Vrana --For those who feel it would be a cheat, and take away from Harry's heroic journey, (I know Jo said DD won't do a Gandalf, but), did it take away from Frodo, at all, that Gandalf showed up at the end, when Frodo is done with his task, but near death, to bring him back?--

Funnily enough, this was part of the rant I never posted.

wynnleaf --If Snape is a loyal DE, and if he actually thought DD was weakened, then it makes sense for him to tell Cissy and Bella. On the other hand, if he's loyal to DD and he did think DD was weaker, he would not say so to Bella and Cissy, because that would undermine DD. I think (assuming JKR is logical!), we can say that if Snape is loyal to DD, then his comment to Cissy and Bella about DD being weaker is a lie.--

There's another possibility. DD is weaker, Snape is loyal to DD, and Snape was told to relay DD's increasing weakness.

shadzar, I'll have to go look up the references, but, as it was discussed before on the forum, I'm thinking there are other killing curses, but the Killing Curse is the AK, which Moody points out "there's no countercurse. There's no blocking it." We know that something large, like a statue can be used to block it, so I'm thinking he's referring to magically blocking it. If that's the case, I don't see DD using a magical item to block the AK Snape fired at him. By the way, I don't think I have a 2nd edition Thieves' Handbook, although I may know where to get one. My brothers actually have most of the RPG books in the family (why collect my own when I can just steal theirs, right?) and it's been a few years since I've played. I'll have to try and borrow my oldest brother's (1st in the family) book, which I doubt he'll be willing to part with any time soon as they and their friends are planning a big gaming weekend down in Texas this coming weekend. I may have to wait til he gets back next week. However, you did give me a wonderful idea for a Christmas present for my older brother (2nd in the family), he lacks Thieves' and Mages' Handbooks, so thanks!

Consequently, as we were discussing whether or not Snape could do a fake AK and rather you had to mean it or not, I ran across Moody's quote regarding this subject, "Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out now and point thm at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed." Just thought it might be helpful.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Meoshimo - Oct 24, 2006 1:16 pm (#434 of 1629)

We seem to be running in circles on this thread lately.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Oct 24, 2006 2:25 pm (#435 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 3:45 pm

In the cave he uses the supposedly dead hand to find traces of magic. Looks dead, but isn't. Why does Jo do this?!? TVrana

Because Dumbledore looks dead but isn't.

Meoshimo, Yes we certainly do. I don't think any of us are certain of any theory concerning what happened on that tower. Every theory has holes and then its back to the ole drawing board. I find this thread the most fun.

I hope Jo will give us a little snippet from book 7 along with some chapter titles for Xmas.

Wynnleaf, maybe Dumbledore wants Voldemort to think he is weak to save Snape. I don't think it would sit to well with Voldemort to have another wizard more able than he to kill the greatest wizard who ever lived. Voldemort certainly failed killing him at the ministry and he knew Draco would fail as well. What I'm trying to say is Voldemort might consider Snape a threat had he killed a healthy strong Dumbledore and therefore would want him dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 24, 2006 6:30 pm (#436 of 1629)

Wynnleaf, maybe Dumbledore wants Voldemort to think he is weak to save Snape.

Madame Pomfrey, I'm sure that was part of the reasoning after the Vow was made. But Snape was giving Narcissa and Bella that info about DD being weak before he'd taken the Vow. So at that point there were no worries about Snape having to AK DD.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 24, 2006 7:01 pm (#437 of 1629)

M Pomfrey- Excellent point! I have wondered if Snape might be in deep trouble with LV for doing something he could not. It never occured to me that this might be one of the reasons DD would want to spread the rumor he's getting old and slow.

One of the points I hinted at earlier, I would like to develop a bit.

We are all looking at the HP series as a complete moment in time, but it isn't for DD. There is a pre-story, there will be a post-story, even if we never know what it is. My point? LV is one Dark Wizard in the WW, preceded by others, certainly to be followed by others. In DD's long life, LV is only 1/3, so far. DD has a bigger history and a bigger life in the WW. He is not just the only wizard LV ever feared, he is the Wizard who defeated Grindevald, who helped find the twelve uses of dragon's blood, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot (What is the difference between warlock and wizard, BTW), Head Mugwump etc., Headmaster of Hogwarts, Most Powerful Wizard of his time, able as a student to do things Marchbanks (I think) had never seen done with a wand. DD has a bigger life, a bigger place. His accomplishments are larger than life. He is larger than life. He is the epitome of goodness.

Harry, from the the moment LV chose him, has a destiny, which he must embrace and does, that lasts, I would imagine, 'til age 17. What Harry does after that, if he survies, is unknown. He is not as gifted as DD. His greatest ability is to love and be loved. He can't replace DD. Harrys' story is a fraction of DD's life. Harry's quest is limited in scope.

My point is that we are looking at the battle with LV as the ultimate battle, and it isn't. It is one of many that have taken place and will take place over the centuries in the WW. This is Harry's battle, and DD does not have to fight it, he has to get out of the way and let Harry fight it. Does that mean he has to die? No, he just has to stand aside and let Harry rise to the occassion (and prepare himself properly in the meantime). Harken back to SS. Harry believes DD let him go after Quirrelmort because he thought he deserved the chance. That may not have changed. Harry deserves the chance to go after LV, but only when he has stepped out of DD's shadow.

Harry begins in SS by going after Quirrelmort alone, and DD arrives after the fact, with Harry badly injured, and is there to pick up the pieces and bring Harry back, not take on LV. Perhaps we will come full circle. Harry will take on a fully returned LV, and DD will be there, at the end, after Harry has achieved his quest, to bring Harry back and offer him the chance at a normal life, perhaps without a scar.

Harry is not DD, nor is he expected to be DD. He is expected to take on LV, and hopefully win. That's it. The idea that DD has to die to let this 17 year battle play out, is not one I think Jo can be held to.

Jo can do what she wants, but I don't think she is required to kill the old wizard. The old wizard just has to let Harry get on with it. Now, she can (and may have) killed DD, that's okay, too. But I don't think it is necessary to fit the genre.

I, for one, will not be disappointed if Harry's quest, and DD's bigger place in the WW turn out this way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 24, 2006 8:22 pm (#438 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 9:24 pm

A little more on the subject-

When the idea that DD may have let himself be killed or may have faked his death first cropped up, many were horrified that DD would 'abandon' Harry. Not the case. This is Harry's fight.

I don't think we can fully understand HBP until we re-read OOTP, The Lost Prophesy. DD admits that he has had a plan and he has strayed. What was that plan? To defeat LV? How? With the one person who could do it, sadly enough, a wonderful boy.

DD telling Harry about the prophesy:

It meant, said Dumbledore, "that the person who has the only chance of conquering Lord Voldemort for good was born at the end of July nearly sixteen years ago. This boy would be born to parents who had already defied Voldemort three times."

Now, a great deal of discussion follows, in OOTP and HBP, regarding LV choosing, Harry choosing etc., but it all boils down to the same thing. Harry is the one person who can defeat LV for good.

DD knows it. Harry knows it. DD has put his plan back in place. The plan he started with but strayed from for love of an extraordinary wizard. He has to think about the countless witches and wizards who may die if he protects Harry.

Harry has to know he is alone to go on and prepare and accomplish this task.

LV is putting other students in harms way trying to get to DD.

DD knows it is time to remove himself so Harry can move along.

DD's death accomplishes some other things as well, which have already been mentioned.

I can't type all the pertinent information, but a reread of The Lost Prophesy in OOTP leads me to believe DD spent HBP putting his plan back into action, and stepping aside for Harry. Hence his tear at the end.

Jo said DD is dead, July 2006. As I understand it, Harry and DD are still in the 1990's...?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 24, 2006 9:04 pm (#439 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 10:06 pm

Jo said DD is dead, July 2006. As I understand it, Harry and DD are still in the 1990's...?

That is a good way of looking at it from what we are all wodneirng about her statements in that interview. She just says he is dead, but doesn't say when exactly he died.

DD won't "pull a Gandalf".

I don't think we are going in circles at all. Mostly all of us are agreeing that by the miDDle of book 7 (I would think) that DD is dead, and more than likely it could have truely happened on the tower.

Our problems are just her comments don't come out and say "Yes he died that night of the tower". She also pulling us into the pit of being closer to "pulling a Gandalf" if he did die.

Frodo thought Gandalf dead when he and Sam split the fellowship to go it alone, but Gandalf returned from a death-like state. Whether he returned or not his death accomplished the same thing that is being said to be of DD and Harry. The death of the mentor provides for the hero to have strength or be forced to start doing things on his own. In that respect I think DD has already "pulled a Gandalf". I don't think anyone is trying to turn DD into a Christ figure, or Lazarus and have him return, but just our problems with how he died and the explanation of why.

So we haven't really gone into circles, we are just eliminating the things that seem the less likely reasons for the tower events. That way we are coming closer to the truth with each theory.

We know DD MUSt still have a part to play sicne the precedent was set by the headmaster portraits helping people after their death. We just need to figure out what those clues are that remain.
# Jam flavor
# Snape's Vow
# Why DD trusted Snape so
# Why didn't DD just take Draco away on the broom Harry arrived on
# Why is the memory not in the Pensieve but a bottle
# How did DD find the cave to begin with
# Why didn't DD tell Harry his sources for finding the ring and locket hiDDing places

The last one I think is the most important one that shows DD will have to appear again in some fashion to give Harry his sources, unless that is the role Aberforth will have to play. Aberforth could also explain the jam flavor as some sort of password.

The problem is we see the death of a character not as in his mortal life, but as in being no longer a part of the story.

The only "properly dead" character we have seen, to my knowledge, is Cedric Diggeroy. He has no further part he can play of information that he could pass on. Just another student at the school that happened to become a casualty. Anyone else that is "dead" from Flamel to DD to James and Lily could have information left to impart on someone and are thus not dead to the story. Cedric just has nothing left to give but the remorse of a friend dying.

IMHO

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weeny Owl - Oct 24, 2006 10:10 pm (#440 of 1629)

The whole jam thing could simply be a password to something or some place that Harry encounters later.

Just because Dumbledore is dead doesn't mean he won't be a part of the last book, nor does it mean he's totally out of Harry's life. His physical being may be gone, but there are plenty of ways his spirit can be around to help out. Already mentioned are portraits, Pensieves, and chocolate frog cards.

I really don't understand why anyone wants him to still be alive. I don't mean the beloved character, but from a plot perspective.

I long thought he would die before the last book, and if JKR does something such as stating that in 2006 he's dead but that all of her answers about him actually being gone in HBP are fake, then I'll just go along with all the people who want to ban her books, albeit not for religious reasons on my part.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [


S.E. Jones - Oct 24, 2006 10:51 pm (#441 of 1629)
Edited Oct 24, 2006 11:52 pm

--Why is the memory not in the Pensieve but a bottle--

Did I miss something? Where did pensieves and memories in a bottle come into it?

Did you mean the memories we see along with Harry in HBP? If so, they're probably bottled to help keep them seperate from DD's personal memories, which would either be in his head or the pensieve.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 24, 2006 11:05 pm (#442 of 1629)

DD keeps some of his memories in bottles, cause he enmptied one into the pensieve to show it to Harry IIRC. Why would he keep them sepereate rather than in the penseive all the time? This would mean people could just walk off with the memory and view it from and penseive right?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 24, 2006 11:22 pm (#443 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 12:23 am

shadzar --DD keeps some of his memories in bottles, cause he enmptied one into the pensieve to show it to Harry IIRC.--

IIRC? Let's try not to use unnecessary abbreviations in posts. Please.

I figured you meant the horcrux/Voldemort memories he was showing Harry. Why would he want to leave them in the pensieve? Eventually the pensieve would be full of memories and it might make it harder to see which ones are his and which ones aren't. I could definitely see it being far more convenient to keep them in bottles and just keep the bottles in a safe or something somewhere. It might make it seem like it would be easier to just walk off with a bottle, but, as Harry has shown, it's easier for memories left in a pensieve to get viewed by eyes other than those they were intended for.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 24, 2006 11:55 pm (#444 of 1629)

Sorry been using online services for many years and IIRC (if i recall correctly) is one that just hard to break away from.

We don't know enough about a pensieve to know what limits it has to hold memories. Also with a bottled memory it can be bought, sold, etc or just viewed quickly by someone without having to searhc through them all. DD was able to call memories to the pensieve, but Harry just fell into ones that seem to be preprogrammed to show to him or were the last series of memories viewed.

We really need more in depth information on the penseive to know why some memories were in bottles rather than in it. Is it that once in the pensieve the memory can't be removed from it so some are kept in bottles so they can be given to other people like Slughorn did with Harry?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 3:38 am (#445 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 5:58 am

Memories can be removed from the pensieve. Snape removes his. I don't think the pensieve is for storing memories, I think it is for viewing a memory or a group of related memories. With 150 years of experience, surely DD would not want to keep all the memories he might want view together.

Weeny Owl- I thought he would die, as well, and accepted it. It is the oDD choices Jo made at times that have made many question if he really died on the tower. Having expected it, knowing it fit the genre, the next step for me was to think, if he really is not dead, how can it fit and not be a cheat. I think looking at the bigger picture, not just Harry's 17 year part, may help. Ban HP if Jo is being a little 'tricksy'? Bit harsh....

EDIT- BTW, I do not want DD to be alive, any more than I want him dead. I really don't care either way. What I do want is an explanation for all the oDD 'clues' that all is not what it seems. And if I don't get that explanation....well I'll still like the books.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 5:42 am (#446 of 1629)

Perhaps this belongs on the major death thread, but, I think it was Wynnleaf who pointed out that Jo seemed unable to answer the 9 year old, and then seemed to feel the need to tell Rushdie that DD is 'definitely...dead'. Rushdie didn't really ask, did he? He was asking more about Snape. You almost get the impression that Jo said more than she wanted to the 9 year old. She gave the impression that book 7 held the answer to DD's status. Then, realizing she may have said too much, used her answer to Rushdie to tell us that DD is dead, a year after publication, and a year into whole websites dedicated to the idea he's not dead.

Will there really be that much anger if Jo has to explain later that it was essential to whatever the final book holds, that she keep DD's status a mystery? Having written such a moving couple of chapters surrounding DD's death, she may have been surprised (and annoyed)that anyone thought DD could be alive (icky green potion, AK, tallest tower, geez what does an author have to do!), and yet we do not know if DD is somehow essential to the final answer in the HP series. What if his status as "not properly dead" , if known, would ruin the ending of book 7, or all of book 7? Would we cut Jo any slack if she needs us to think he's dead? I would. Sixteen years in the making, if she needs to be a little devious, I'm ok with it.

Why would he be essential? No idea. But I agree with Wynnleaf from the start of this thread, the number of small clues aDD up to huge doubt when stacked together.

Having said all that, DD is most likely dead, properly, etc., but I don't buy that he has to be or we should all be really angry with Jo. It's a story, her story, and she can do just about whatever she wants to get to the end she's been planning for 16 years, as long as it remains true to the genre.

No, DD won't pull a Gandalf, but Gandalf died and was reborn as a more powerful wizard, so we can eliminate that one. (Don't like that idea for DD any way).

JMHO

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Saracene - Oct 25, 2006 5:49 am (#447 of 1629)

T Vrana:

---For those who feel it would be a cheat, and take away from Harry's heroic journey, (I know Jo said DD won't do a Gandalf, but), did it take away from Frodo, at all, that Gandalf showed up at the end, when Frodo is done with his task, but near death, to bring him back?---

Well, IMO there are many significant differences between the two stories. For one thing, in LoTR there's also a huge chunk of the story which is not about Frodo at all and in which we see Gandalf work hard at preserving MiDDle Earth - so he didn't just "stand aside". I imagine that if, instead, Gandalf showed up in the story only at the very end, it would have been quite different (and probably invoke charges of bad writing).

And I can't really agree with an idea that this is not DD's battle. DD has been fighting Voldemort even before Harry himself was born; and I don't think that anyone who is fighting a Dark Wizard like Voldemort can allow himself to think of it as "just another Dark Wizard". Especially when this Dark Wizard has already, at one point, looked like winning despite the Order and the Ministry having the epitome of goodness, defeater of Grindelwald, etc. etc., on their side.

wynnleaf:

---I'm not trying to say that the Vow needs the bonder to decide. But I am pointing out that JKR has in no way written herself into a corner about it. She has plenty of room to tell us later that 1. Draco's original mission was not to kill DD or 2. the Vow could be tricked because the decision is made by Bella. Either of those two plotlines could be used by JKR without the sense that she'd deceived the readers unfairly.---

Well, personally I feel that both of these options would leave me with a sense of JKR not playing fair - maybe not technically cheating but cheating still. I can't see any indication in the book whatsoever that killing DD was not Draco's original task, or anything that could potentially turn out to be a hint-in-retrospective. So the revelation that it was something else entirely would just make me go "huh??"

As for the second suggestion, I don't know why but I just really dislike the idea that the UV is not really Unbreakable but ok to break if you can only deceive the bonder well enough. IMO it just makes the whole contract - which IMO is one of the most powerful and disturbing magical concepts JKR came up with - rather toothless.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 6:14 am (#448 of 1629)

saracene- I do not want to make light of LV, of course, but DD made it clear that Harry is the only wizard who can get rid of LV permanently. This is Harry's quest, not DD's. Yes, DD has been fighting him, but he found the answer to defeating him in Harry.

With DD still around, Harry was not preparing himself properly. The growth in Harry in a few short days, post DD's death, is astounding. I just question if DD really has to die for that transformation to take place. DD knows his presence in Harry's quest had become a problem. A problem for Harry, a problem for Harry's friends, and a problem for DD's students (with DD 'dead', no need to threaten students and their families). DD got a big wake up call at the MoM. It was time to get his plan back on track. He can't be part of that plan physically if Harry is to get on with it, and I think he knew (knows) it.

As for no evidence that Malfoy's task may have been different in the beginning. Why no attempts on DD's life after Christmas? Malfoy is sobbing uncontrollably in the bathroom toward the end of the year, but all he does is feverishly work on the cabinet. At some point I would think he would lose it and try something else. If LV is going to kill him and his family, why not try anything?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 25, 2006 6:36 am (#449 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 7:57 am

With DD still around, Harry was not preparing himself properly. The growth in Harry in a few short days, post DD's death, is astounding. I just question if DD really has to die for that transformation to take place. DD knows his presence in Harry's quest had become a problem. A problem for Harry, a problem for Harry's friends, and a problem for DD's students (with DD 'dead', no need to threaten students and their families). DD got a big wake up call at the MoM. It was time to get his plan back on track. He can't be part of that plan physically if Harry is to get on with it, and I think he knew (knows) it.-- T Vrana

With Dumbledore dead, Voldemort can now turn his attention and resources elsewhere. Score one for the Bad Guys. The Order has lost their leader. Score two for the Bad Guys. Hogwarts isn't considered safe and is on the brink of closing. Score three for the Bad Guys. "The Chosen One" has lost his protector and mentor at the age of sixteen. Score four for the Bad Guys. The wizarding world will be demoralized by the events of that night, and the Death Eaters' morale bolstered. Score five for the Bad Guys.

I've no doubt that everything will work out in the long run, and Voldemort and his cohorts will be defeated by the end of Book 7, which will likely encompass one year of time.

Dumbledore didn't know about Book 7 though. For all he knew, the war could last another five, or eleven, or seventeen years. It could end with Harry's death and Voldemort's victory.

The statement that Dumbledore can't be part of the war because of Harry makes sense from a plot standpoint, but makes no sense from Dumbledore's standpoint.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 6:52 am (#450 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 8:04 am

Mrs. Brisbee- I disagree! DD knew he messed up by protecting Harry too long. He was very clear to Harry at the end of OOTP. Harry took a group of Hogwarts students to the MoM and nearly got them killed. Now Draco and his family have been threatened, and clearly even with DD around, DEs got into Hogwarts. Even if DD had lived, would Hogwarts remain open? So his death or 'death' have the same consequence. Harry, in the back of his mind, knew DD would always be there, so he took chances he should not have taken, and did not prepare himself mentally or emotionally to take on LV. With DD gone he has to grow and does. DD can recognize the need to remove himself (at least as far as LV and Harry are concerned). That LV thinks he doesn't have to worry about DD any more, score one for DD. That LV thinks Snape is truly on his side, score one for DD. That the wizarding world will have to find strength in itself and stop arresting pimply faced bus attendants, score one for DD.

I didn't mean to imply DD can't be part of the war. He can, but Harry and LV can't know. And DD can't permanently get rid of LV, but Harry, properly prepared, can.

EDIT- Mrs. Brisbee- is it your belief then, that LV was successful, DD never had a choice on the tower to save himself? Even those who think he's dead think he sacrificed himself for Snape and Malfoy. But then, by your argument, he let dowm the entire WW for two wizards?

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 451 to 475

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:20 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


juliebug - Oct 25, 2006 7:02 am (#451 of 1629)

Could Dumbledore's death actually be a good strategic move? I think we all agree that Dumbledore's part in this story is not completely over. Via portraits, penseives and possibly other magical means, he is still, at least a little bit, in the game. Could Dumbledore be anticipating Voldemort's under estimation of a dead man's usefullness? We know this has happened before, with Lily. Is it possible that some other form of protection could reach out to Harry from beyond the veil? Just a thought.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 25, 2006 7:05 am (#452 of 1629)

but DD made it clear that Harry is the only wizard who can get rid of LV permanently. This is Harry's quest, not DD's. Yes, DD has been fighting him, but he found the answer to defeating him in Harry.

So we should feel sorry for DD that he was so useless he just gave up the fight? Poor DD to give up his life because he couldn't fight and be the epitome of Justice anymore by defeating yet another Dark Wizard.

I don't like it! DD would not give up and that is what that statement makes it sound as if DD was sulking. Just because you find the answer to your question it doesn't mean that the symptom has been cured.

I didn't mean to imply DD can't be part of the war. He can, but Harry and LV can't know. And DD can't permanently get rid of LV, but Harry, properly prepared, can.

Who is left to prepare Harry now? Those 5 strikes against 'good guys' sure makes it look like a downhill battle for anyone, let alone the 'chosen one'.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 25, 2006 7:17 am (#453 of 1629)

T Vrana- I disagree!

Dumbledore messed up by trying to protect Harry by keeping him ignorant. That's not the same as protecting someone by being their mentor and training them in the skills they need to do their job.

Harry was preparing himself mentally-- with Dumbledore's help--- for his confrontation with Voldemort. Remember that bit where Dumbledore explains that the Prophecy isn't written in stone and both Harry and Voldemort have a choice? Harry grows a lot right there, and it's with Dumbledore's help. Harry is learning important things from Dumbledore, and it's likely there was likely much more Dumbledore could have taught him that was pertinent.

That LV thinks he doesn't have to worry about DD any more, score one for DD.

Okay, but what will Dumbledore be doing while pretending to be dead? He can't go Horcrux hunting if he isn't letting Harry in on the Not Dead secret, because there is the good chance they will cross paths just like with R.A.B.-- causing more problems then anything else. Plus, we've seen that Horcrux hunting isn't the safest of past times-- I think you need a few friends either during the hunt or afterwards in order to survive. So Horcrux hunting is out. What else can Dumbledore do, that doesn't involve actually coming in contact with people to influence them or gather information? Because really, I think Dumbledore's standing, charisma, and reputation were big assets to the Wizarding World, and those assets are useless now.

That LV thinks Snape is truly on his side, score one for DD.

Maybe. Everyone else thinks Snape is a traitorous murderer. So we'll just have to see how this one plays out.

That the wizarding world will have to find strength in itself and stop arresting pimply faced bus attendants, score one for DD.

Since Dumbledore wasn't causing them to be idiots, I doubt it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 7:45 am (#454 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 9:18 am

Mrs. Brisbee

With a year's preparation, Harry still forgot what DD had just told him in the cave, Inferi fear warmth and light. While Harry helped DD from the cave, and DD made the comment that he was not concerned because he was with Harry, DD still directed all the events up until his 'death'. Harry can't truly grow until DD is gone. Harry has to know for certain that he is completely alone before he can truly rise to his full potential.

DD's teaching is done. At some point he has to let Harry go, literally, on is own.

shadzar- DD useless? I never said such a thing. But DD has done his part. This is Harry Potter and the ______, not DD and the Chosen One Who Can't Go On Alone. DD has not given up the fight. He has empowered the one who can defeat LV, and he has given him room to grow. DD sulking? No! *sigh*. Who will teach Harry? The teaching is done. It is time for Harry to get on with his heroic journey. If DD feels his absence makes Harry stronger and better prepared, how is that sulking or giving up?

If it erases all doubts that Snape is a DE (to LV and the DEs), also good.

EDIT- It is a sign of DD's confidence in Harry, not an indication that DD gave up.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 25, 2006 7:45 am (#455 of 1629)

Lots of good comments. Just a few things I want to comment on.

Weeny Owl, I don't want DD to be alive. I just think he might be alive. If there's any "want" to it, I suppose I want all those oDD circumstances that JKR put into the last chapters of HBP -- as well as those various other oDD quotes in interviews, etc. -- to mean something, not just be random.

Everyone else thinks Snape is a traitorous murderer.

Hm. We don't know that. All we know is that everyone who we saw at the end of HBP appeared to consider him a murderer. But we don't know for sure.

If Draco's mission turned out to be something else, would JKR be cheating? Absolutely not! She never, ever told us his original mission was to kill DD. And the DE's in the castle played practically no part in the attempt by Draco on DD's life. It would actually be a great plot twist if we found that Draco's primary mission was something quite different and the DE's had to get into the castle to accomplish it.

What about JKR telling readers to get on with the grieving process? Would readers feel that JKR had made them mourn unnecessarily if they started reading Book 7 and somewhere in the book discovered DD was alive, but then he still died?

Well, you've got to start grieving sometime. It's only a book after all, and most of people will read it in only a few days. Are readers going to be all upset because they find DD alive?? And then later in the book he's dead? Hm. I don't think it's going to be horribly stressful if readers find he's alive. The second death scene could conceivably be stressful, but not if it happened within pages of finding him alive. Or we find he's alive, but dying and he dies a few chapters on.

I really think JKR can have the reader discover DD alive without much trauma over it, particularly if she also made clear right at that time that DD was definitely dying.

Would people feel cheated? To find out a favorite character really was in the next book, but whose death was timed somewhat differently?

Maybe right now, it would seem to many to be "cheating," but I think JKR could do it quite believably and satisfy both readers who thought he was dead, and those that thought he wasn't dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Meoshimo - Oct 25, 2006 8:40 am (#456 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 9:41 am

I wish Dumbledore were alive but, alas, he's dead. As much as I'd like to, I just can't believe that he's going to be physically alive at any point after he fell from the tower. I'm sure his death is much simpler than we're making it out to be.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 9:01 am (#457 of 1629)

ODDly enough, I think if it had been simpler, we might not have so many questions!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 25, 2006 9:58 am (#458 of 1629)

TVrana: Alas, however, we got earwax.

I guess not as dramatic leaving his body laying atop the tower while Harry chases Snape down and out. Those darned cinematics of the fall just have to get in the way of simple logic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 10:21 am (#459 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 11:26 am

Alas, however, we got earwax.

LOL

For those who think DD would not let Harry go on alone: In SS, regarding Harry going after Quirrelmort:

“D'you think he meant you to do it?” said Ron. "Sending you your father's cloak and everything?"

"Well, Hermione exploded, "if he did -- I mean to say -- that's terrible -- you could have been killed."

No, it isn't,” said Harry thoughtfully. "He's a funny man, Dumbledore. I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think he more or less knows everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked. It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I could..."

That was when Harry was 11. Next time, he'll be 17. I still think this still holds true.

How many Hermiones do we have out there?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 25, 2006 10:29 am (#460 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 11:30 am

Stupid question, but I'm curious. Why is it so necessary for Dumbledore to be alive? I don't get it. Why do fans so desperately want Harry to have had to go through all of that for nothing, just so DD can pop up later, and say, "Ha! Tom, I had you fooled! Sorry, Harry."

Not to mention what it would do to everyone in the wizarding world who was affected by his death. His allies, at least some of them, would likely feel betrayed, would they not?

He's not the one who has to vanquish Voldemort after all. Alive or dead, he can't do it for Harry. Why this big push to make what we saw not be real? It's the same thing that happened with Sirius, and I didn't understand it then, either, except that Sirius just disappeared. With DD you had a body and a funeral, but this is still not enough. If he WERE alive, what the heck exactly do we expect him to do? What do we want him back FOR?

I know some of the death scene is a bit off, but Jo's made mistakes before.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weeny Owl - Oct 25, 2006 10:31 am (#461 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 11:34 am

Ban HP if Jo is being a little 'tricksy'?

Nope, not her being a little "tricksy." She's done that before and quite well, but if her stating that Dumbledore is dead and for the fans to go through the grieving process, then it isn't just being "tricksy." Honestly, I wouldn't want the books banned, but I would put my copies in the book sale at the library.

Will there really be that much anger if Jo has to explain later that it was essential to whatever the final book holds, that she keep DD's status a mystery?

I wouldn't be angry... just incredibly disappointed, but it isn't that she would have kept Dumbledore's status a mystery. She already stated he's dead. If she wanted it to be a mystery, she could have come up with another way of phrasing all of her statements. I just don't see her out and out lying about it.

I DO think there's a mystery surrounding his death, but it's more about WHEN he died, and I still think he died in the cave. I think she might be hesitant about discussing his death so that she doesn't give away too much, but I do believe she was being honest when she said he was dead.

As for the "not properly dead," it fits with my theory... he wasn't really properly dead in the cave, but he had died and was revived, and unless he could get to Snape to get an antidote, he would properly die, but it wasn't until the tower that he ended up properly dead.

I still don't think Snape actually killed him, though. I believe that he was nearly dead anyway, and that an Avada Kedavra saved him from the possibility of becoming an Inferius and that that was what the potion he drank could accomplish. It's far-fetched, I know, but I just don't believe that Snape is on Voldemort's side, and that the Avada Kedavra was cast on a man who was already dead, even if he was still speaking. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 25, 2006 11:00 am (#462 of 1629)

I'm sure he's dead, but I think it makes folks feel better if Dumbledore was still around some how.

Yes - it is a work of fiction, but I was actually depressed when Dumbledore died.

I also think that people don't like that good has died and evil lives on.

Harry will be fine. I just miss Dumbledore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 25, 2006 11:04 am (#463 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 12:05 pm

Die Zimtzicke said: Stupid question, but I'm curious. Why is it so necessary for Dumbledore to be alive? I don't get it. Why do fans so desperately want Harry to have had to go through all of that for nothing, just so DD can pop up later, and say, "Ha! Tom, I had you fooled! Sorry, Harry."

I don't actually see anyone here who desperately wants Harry to have gone "through all of that for nothing." Anyway, if DD staged anything, it wasn't for Harry's benefit. Harry probably wasn't even supposed to be there. And I don't see anyone here who has some desperate wish for DD to be alive.

I can only assume that some people (not just you Die) just don't believe those of us who say we don't personally care if DD is alive or not. I can understand people doubting that, but please don't.

I really don't care. It's purely the puzzle I care about. That's it. DD being dead in the obvious manner doesn't answer the puzzle. And I really, really like puzzles.

Anyone still asking "What's the puzzle?" Read the opening posts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 11:25 am (#464 of 1629)

wynnleaf- I agree completely.

Weeny- I don't follow the idea that DD was dead but revived in the cave. By what? By Harry splashing Lake water on him? Why would that revive a dead person? I haven't seen this theory before (was away for a while).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 25, 2006 11:29 am (#465 of 1629)

Well, as Die Zimtzicke pointed out, Sirius's death was questioned as well. If I remember correctly, there was quite a space between when we got the book and when we got the confirmation (from JKR) that he was dead.

As for puzzles and DD's death... I definitely think he's dead, but I do think there's something there that needs to be read into. Yes, there's a puzzle, but I don't think it necessarily has to answer "is he dead?". What if all the pieces lead up to something else, something like what Weeny was suggesting. If we find out that DD was going to die from the curse that affected his hand eventually (say he got 1 year out of whatever Snape did to help him afterward) and then that that protection had nearly worn off, then Snape killing DD might take on a slightly different spin, from Harry's point of view anyway. I don't necessarily think that will happen, but all the clues leading up to something that changes the way Harry views DD's death and Snape's part in it would be rather important without DD having to be classified as "properly" dead or not. I mean, if Harry finds out that DD had been preparing all year, and had a contingency plan that involved his possible death that kicked in on the tower, that would be a puzzle and would affect the storyline. All I'm saying is that I don't see why the puzzle has to aDD up to "is he dead or not"?

Yes, genre-wise, all JKR had to do was get him out of the way, and, as I mentioned before, I thought she might do that without killing him (Draught of Living Death, for instance), but she didn't go that way with it, in my opinion. His death was simple enough (he got Aked and fell off a tower), but I think the events surrounding his death are what contain the puzzle, not the death itself. Who's side is Snape really on? What sort of protection might have DD's death conferred to Snape and/or Draco? Did Snape know what he was getting into when he made the Vow? Those are the sort of things that I think we'll learn from the puzzle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 11:41 am (#466 of 1629)

For what it is worth, I never doubted for a second that Sirius was dead.

SE- You are right it may have nothing to do with whether DD is dead or not, but it may, 'specially since so many folks have questioned it, not based on emotion, but conflicting evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Oct 25, 2006 12:01 pm (#467 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 1:04 pm

I, too, am puzzled by all the clues that suggested Dumbledore wasn't properly dead. JKR's confirmation that Dumbledore is really dead doesn't really resolve many or these. I think I have a plausible scenario that fits the clues.

A first hint comes from the pensive scenes. The orphanage scene and Voldemort's visit were Dumbledore's memories, so I consider these sort of anchor points. The timing of the other scenes is a bit puzzling.

The earliest that Dumbledore would have suspected a Voldemort horcrux would be from R.A.B., about the time Harry was born. (This is why Dumbledore knew Voldmeort didn't actually die at Godric's Hollow.) So, Dumbledore's horcrux investigation started around the time Harry was born. Dumbledore had already heard the prophecy, so knows he will need the information.

We don't know the exact dates for the pensive scenes, but all had to have occurred well before Godric's Hollow, and the source for some couldn't have been around until after Dumbledore started his investigation. I, particularly, suspect that Morfin and Hokey died before Dumbledore started his investigation. Dumbledore did say he obtained those memories with great difficulty. This establishes that Dumbledore had, and was used to using, a time turner.

I am suggesting that Dumbledore used a time turner to get some of the HBP pensive scenes.

I have wondered why a time turner was empolyed in PoA. It added a couple of interesting elements, like Harry seeing himself, but the overall plot could have been accomplished without it.

The time turner was introduced in PoA (and mentioned in OotP and HBP) as back story for plot elements we will learn of in book seven.

So, the plausible scenario:

A future Dumbledore came back and met with the HBP timeline Dumbledore. The HBP timeline Dumbledore went off somewhere. The future timeline Dumbledore took Harry to the cave and died on the tower.

In book seven the HBP timeline Dumbledore will confront Harry and give him the "favorite jam" reference so Harry knows it is really him. Harry will then hear the story behind the ring, and other things.

I think this fits everything. Confirming or conflicting comments are welcome.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 25, 2006 12:10 pm (#468 of 1629)

Soul Search --We don't know the exact dates for the pensive scenes, but all had to have occurred well before Godric's Hollow, and the source for some couldn't have been around until after Dumbledore started his investigation. I, particularly, suspect that Morfin and Hokey died before Dumbledore started his investigation. Dumbledore did say he obtained those memories with great difficulty. This establishes that Dumbledore had, was used to using, a time turner.—

I don't think he used a time-turner. He says quite clearly that Morfin and Hokey were both arrested for murder and that he got the memories from them just before their deaths. In each case, they had been imprisoned for many years, Dumbledore got the memory and realized they were innocent, tried to get their sentence revoked, and the respective person died before they could be released.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 25, 2006 12:21 pm (#469 of 1629)

What about the dead hand?

Would Future Dumbledore be the one that came to collect Harry at the Dursleys?

Good God!!!

I have argued elsewhere that "either must die at the hand of The Other" refers to Peter Pettigrew.

What if it is instead Dumbledore and that is truly how his hand died?

He tells Harry that it is a thrilling tale and that he needs time to do it justice.

He tells Harry that Snape saved him - perhaps that is how Snape redeems himself - perhaps with the sing-song cure that he used on Draco.

Music - greater than any magic we teach here....

Way to go, Soul Search - now my head really hurts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 12:21 pm (#470 of 1629)

SS- The problem with time turners is it gets messy. Why just use it to get memories? Why not go back and save the Potter's or ambush LV?

DD suspected LV was messing around with very Dark Magic when he came to ask for the job, many years before the prophesy and Harry. I'm willing to bet he was investigating LV shortly after that job interview, or really, before, given he knew aome of the things LV was up to.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Oct 25, 2006 12:59 pm (#471 of 1629)

S.E. Jones,

The Morfin pensieve scene occurred when Tom Riddle was about 16 and the Hokey pensieve scene when Riddle was working at Borgin and Burkes. It's over forty years from then to Godric's Hollow. I just think it unlikely that both lived that long. Dumbledore using a time turner is the more likely alternative.

T Vrana,

No doubt Dumbledore was keeping some track of Voldemort all the time. However, the particular pensive scenes we were shown in HBP were related to horcurxes and horcrux objects. My conjecture is that Dumbledore started horcrux related investigations sometime between R.A.B and Godric's Hollow. I don't think, for example, that Slughorn told Dumbledore about Tom Riddle's interest in horcruxes until much later, given that he was ashamed of the memory.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 25, 2006 2:06 pm (#472 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Soul Search --The Morfin pensieve scene occurred when Tom Riddle was about 16 and the Hokey pensieve scene when Riddle was working at Borgin and Burkes. It's over forty years from then to Godric's Hollow. I just think it unlikely that both lived that long. Dumbledore using a time turner is the more likely alternative.--

Why is it so hard to believe they could've lived another 40 years? Dumbledore's 150. Besides that, I doubt he would have had to come across the memories after Godric's Hollow. We know from his speeches in HBP that he has been researching Voldemort's past for a great many years, he's known since Voldemort was in school that the kid was going to the bad (we also know this from CoS) and we know from PS that Voldemort showed up and started gathering followers 10 years before Harry was even born. So, isn't it possible that, when Voldemort showed up less human, more powerful, and amassing followers, that Dumbledore started looking into things? I think so. I doubt, though, that there would be any problems, storywise, if Dumbledore had waited 40 years. Dumbledore says that he got both memories just prior to the end of each subject's life, so they could've each been dying from old age as well as being incarcerated.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 25, 2006 7:17 pm (#473 of 1629)
Edited Oct 25, 2006 8:50 pm

Going back a little-

Mrs Brisbee: Dumbledore messed up by trying to protect Harry by keeping him ignorant. That's not the same as protecting someone by being their mentor and training them in the skills they need to do their job.

True, but DD was dismayed not only that he had kept Harry in the dark, but also that his plan was off track. From OOTP, The Lost Prophesy:

I cared about you too much, said DD simply. "I cared more for your happiness than you knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan , more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed...." (emphasis mine)

What is this plan? It is more than just telling Harry about the prophesy. That does not rise to the level of a plan. DD says he cared (past tense) more for Harry's life than countless others. He also says:

I had fallen into the trap I had foreseen, that I told myself I could avoid, I must avoid.

Why must he avoid caring for Harry?

DD had a plan from the beginning, to destroy LV, using Harry. Then, Harry turned out to be extraordinary and DD grew to care too much for him. If DD's only plan was to tell Harry, train him, educate him, but still be there to protect and help, why the sadness at caring too much? How would caring too much get in the way of a plan like that? Sure, it delayed DD telling Harry about the prophesy, but what is this plan that makes DD so sad NOW? LV is going to come after Harry no matter what, so for DD to prepare Harry is a no brainer, and caring for him is not a problem. Of course he would prepare Harry and protect Harry if he cared for him. So what part of the plan requires DD not to care for Harry? For DD to take the final step and leave Harry (and this step is crucial for Harry to truly become a wizard capable of taking on LV), that would test the resolve of someone who cared for Harry. Teaching and protecting fit nicely with caring, leaving, dare I say abandoning, does not.

Now, when I say use Harry, I think DD must use Harry. Harry is the only one with the power to vanquish LV forever. So, DD must now care less for Harry's life than the hundreds, thousands, that might be lost if his plan is not put into action. Harry must be fully prepared to rid the world of LV, and that preparation includes knowing he is it, he is on his own, and he is the WW only hope.

Later, in HBP, DD is adamant that Harry agree that he is going after LV because he chooses to. This important to Harry, but I think it is also important for DD to get Harry's agreement, before he finishes his plan. So, while I say DD uses and abandons Harry, it is Harry's choice to go after LV, not DD's choice to send him there.

No, I don't think DD planned everything that happened from the beginning, but the main points, I do. That includes leaving Harry. That's why DD is so sad at the end of OOTP and sheds a tear.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 25, 2006 7:40 pm (#474 of 1629)

I am against the theory that DD was usitng a time turner, because you have to turn it once to go back an hour.In some of the instances I've seen suggested, you'd have to turn it a zillion times to get to where you need to be. I just hate them anyway. They're such a cop out. It's like Dr. Who going back and arguing with himself. It's a gimmick that get irritating when it is used too often.

I agree the plan part of DD's earlier statement is probably important, but I think once the plan (whatever it was) went off track, it continued to spiral off that track until it was out of control.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weeny Owl - Oct 25, 2006 9:16 pm (#475 of 1629)

Weeny- I don't follow the idea that DD was dead but revived in the cave. By what? By Harry splashing Lake water on him? Why would that revive a dead person? I haven't seen this theory before (was away for a while).

Yes, by splashing the lake water on him. Why would that revive a dead person? Because the potion was no ordinary potion, and chances are the lake water wasn't innocent either. Dumbledore didn't want Harry touching the water, so there was probably something wrong with it. Not to mention, the Inferi pickling there.

As I said, my theory is far-fetched, but I don't think it's any more far-fetched than a lot of others.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 476 to 500

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:24 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 25, 2006 11:18 pm (#476 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 12:19 am

TVrana: SS- The problem with time turners is it gets messy. Why just use it to get memories? Why not go back and save the Potter's or ambush LV?

To prevent a paradox in which the prophecy and the defeat of the "Dark Lord" cannot be fullfilled.

So we are looking at DD now for an answer to the prophecy? Saying the prophecy entails more than jsut Harry, and LV, but at leat DD and Snape as well?

…either must die at the hand of the other…

Claiming that DD dying at Snape's hands was fullfilling that phrase of the prophecy. Wouldn't that mean that Snape and/or DD could have gotten the prophecy from the MoM at anytime, or only those named on the cards can.

If Snape did get and view the whole prophecy and report its full contents to LV then the events on the tower take a turn for the worse for Harry and Snape's character. But it does fit that phrase.

# DD could not live so long as Snape was still acting for LV.
# Snape couldn't live his life while he was still under suspicion and "trust" from DD.

I wonder if we need to look at the prophecy again in new light of recent events to see if there is more to it than just the Harry—LV connction as this possible meaning from DD death could show.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 26, 2006 4:46 am (#477 of 1629)

Hermione's time turner only worked an hour at a time - it was all she needed.

Perhaps Dumbledore has one where 1 turn equals a month or a year.

Or...since he's learned how to go invisible without a cloak, maybe he can travel through time without a Time Turner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Steve Newton - Oct 26, 2006 5:24 am (#478 of 1629)

Die, the hour per turn Time Turner is bothersome. I figure that there are some big ones someplace that have a little better return on investment. I couldn't prove it, though. Unless we have seen one and not recognized it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 26, 2006 11:34 am (#479 of 1629)

Dumbledore's watch may play into this. It could be an advanced time-turner. Perhaps students get a simple one that doesn't allow them to go back too far.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 26, 2006 12:13 pm (#480 of 1629)

We've never seen anyone, though, purposely use a time-turner to go forward. Hermione used hers to go back and then had to re-live that time until she caught up to herself. We don't know if a turn in the other direction takes you forward or not. If it didn't, and there was a turner that could take you back a month or year a turn, you'd have to re-live that entire time. As someone else said, time travel just makes things messy. It's like the parallel dimensions that Star Trek has done to death. I think JKR's a good enough story-teller not to rely on something so cliché or as much of a cop-out in the larger scheme of things.

I still think Dumbledore simply retrieved the memories when the subject was old and dying. He had no reason to wait til after Godric's Hollow, necessarily. As I said before, he knew Voldemort was bad news as a student, when he showed up again looking less human and striving to gain followers, I could see Dumbledore taking an interest. We know he was gaining followers and starting to come to power twenty years before PS, which would make it ten years before Godric's Hollow. That still leaves Morfin and Hokey sitting in Azkaban for 30 years, but I think it's possible. Sirius and Bella had been in Azkaban for twelve years without dying, so I could see someone making it twice that long.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 26, 2006 12:36 pm (#481 of 1629)

I wonder if Ollivander's disappearance could have played a part in DD death. There is a connection to him and Fawkes. Why would Fawkes give two feathers? The time turner seems plausible if you think DD could have known anything about the future and convinced Fawkes to give two feathers to Ollivander. Maybe DD is like the centaurs with all his astrology equipment and knows what the stars have planned out. But that would go against the whole choices motif.

But it could explain some of the tower events and why DD seemed to know so much about obscure things...that and he was working at Hogwarts for 100 years.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 26, 2006 1:01 pm (#482 of 1629)

SE- I agree DD could have gathered those memories long before the prophesy. He said he had been investigating Tom's history for some time. I would say at the very least he must have started when LV arrived looking for a job, clearly changed and clearly dangerous.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 26, 2006 1:19 pm (#483 of 1629)

As regards time-turner theories, didn't JKR once say in an interview that none of the characters had come back from the future?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Soul Search - Oct 26, 2006 2:02 pm (#484 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 3:23 pm

I am not suggesting a long time period with the time turner. It is a bit tricky to explain time movements, though. The language doesn't well support the concept.

I refer to the Dumbledore throughout most of HBP as "The HBP Dumbledore." No time turner is involved until the night of the cave and tower.

A Dumbledore from a time future to that night, "Future Dumbledore," visits "HBP Dumbledore" before Harry goes to Dumbledore's office. All "Future Dumbledore" had to do was use the time turner in his office, going back in time to meet "HBP Dumbledore." He would know when HBP Dumbledore is alone in his office.

Future Dumbledore accompanies Harry to the cave and subsequent events. HBP Dumbledore hides, goes off to do something, warns Snape and tells him to be ready to go to the tower, or whatever.

HBP Dumbledore will confront Harry early in book seven. Harry is still at Hogwarts. Dumbledore will tell Harry some important things: the ring, Snape, etc. Harry relates the events of the cave and tower to HBP Dumbledore, so he knows what's going to happen when he goes back to become "Future Dumbledore." That is why Dumbledore seems so confident about the events in the cave and the tower; he knows what is going to happen. He only has to go back in time a few days for all this to work, but the time could be longer. I see no problem with time turners that go back an hour per turn, or day per turn, or whatever time. They are all magic.

Dumbledore's explicit instructions to Harry about obeying him well supports this concept. Future Dumbledore knows Harry will have to feed him the potion, and keep feeding it to him.

Biggest question is why go to all the trouble with the time turner? I think it is because the need for Dumbledore to die and make the most of it occurred the night of the cave, but Dumbledore still had some things to do and explain to Harry. So, he "planned" to come back from the future and then die to save Snape, Draco, etc.

I don't especially like a time turner scenario either; it just seems to fit better and explain all the puzzles better than any other alternatives. We also have those suspicious time turner reminders in OotP and HBP.

This also explains JKR's hesitancy about confirming Dumbledore's death. He did die on the tower, won't pull a Gandoff, but will still appear a bit in book seven. Confusing to try and explain, without giving everything away.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Choices - Oct 26, 2006 5:06 pm (#485 of 1629)

I'm not saying I like this theory or that I am buying into it, but it does explain how Dumbledore sometimes does not look the least bit worried when Harry returns from facing Voldemort. For example - when Harry returns from the chamber with Ginny...."Professor Dumbledore was standing by the mantelpiece, beaming, next to Professor McGonagall who was taking great, steadying gasps, clutching her chest." McGonagall is frantic and yet Dumbledore is BEAMING. Makes me think he already knew what the outcome would be and thus was not worried.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 26, 2006 5:29 pm (#486 of 1629)

I think JKR gave that quote about nobody coming back from the future when everyone was guessing that Ron was a young Dumbledore.

I'm sick of Time Turners and I really hope this isn't true, but I could see how it would work.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 26, 2006 6:48 pm (#487 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 7:51 pm

I have to agree with haymoni, I hate time turners and think they are the weakest element ever introduced by Jo. Why would the ministry give a student a time turner just to take more classes? They make anything possible and everything a bit messy. I think that is why she had DA destroy them in the MoM. Well, I hope any way.

A thought about the Cave and what DD was experiencing when he drank the potion. At first I thought the "don't want to" was related to drinking the potion, but wonder if it is "don't want to" see his worst nightmare. Regrets. Jo mentioned that DD's boggart is in book 6. Two possibilities:

1) Snape the traitor on the tower

2) Whatever he 'witnessed' in the cave

Partway through DD admits he did wrong. To whom? Then he pleads for others not to be hurt, hurt him instead, kill him.

I have not seen this thought before, but have been away for a bit, so apologies if it has been presented already. Is it possible that though DD trusts Snape 'completely', on some level he realizes Snape is flawed? And does he feel partly responsible?

Snape was terrorized in school and ends up where he feels powerful, useful, etc., with LV and the DEs. He was subjected to bullying, enough that Lupin felt DD made him a prefect to control James and Sirius. He was abused, right under DD's nose. James is dead. Sirius is dead. DD is...dead. Is that why Lily would have been spared?

Is it possible that DD feels somewhat responsible for Snape becoming a DE? That on some deep level he feels he should have done more to protect Severus as a student? That none of this would have happened to Harry and the Potters if he had done more?

Don't hurt them, kill me....Severus.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 26, 2006 7:01 pm (#488 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 8:09 pm

shadzar --Maybe DD is like the centaurs with all his astrology equipment and knows what the stars have planned out. But that would go against the whole “choices” motif.—

I like this idea much better, and I don't think it would go against the choices motif. We've seen from the centaurs that the stars can tell you the state of something and that they choose not to interfere based on what they see. The fact that they choose not to interfere means that you can choose to interfere as well, choice is still a huge part of it. Given all the little instruments in Dumbledore's office and his pocket watch, as well as his very centaur-like view of Divination, I think it very likely that he makes plans and takes calculated risks based on what the stars say. I think that explains things at least as well as a time-turner and without the mess.

T Vrana, I didn't think JKR actually said the boggart was in book 6, but that you might be able to guess it from book 6. She also said something about Dumbledore's family being a better line of questioning, and what Dumbledore says there (the "kill me instead" line) is very reminiscent of what Lily says to Voldemort. Maybe he's remembering something that happpened to his own family?

TLC/Mugglenet interview (part 2):
ES: What would Dumbledore see [in the Mirror of Erised]?
JKR: I can't answer that.
ES: What would Dumbledore's boggart be?
JKR: I can't answer that either, but for theories you should read six again. There you go.

and from (Part 3):
ES: Where did he learn it all?
JKR: I see him primarily as someone who would be self-taught. However, he in his time had access to superb teachers at Hogwarts, so he was educated in the same way that everyone else is educated. Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry, more profitable than sweet wrappers.
MA: His family?
JKR: Family, yes.
MA: Should we talk about that a little more?
JKR: No. But you can! [Laughter.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 26, 2006 7:05 pm (#489 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 8:07 pm

Hi, I'm alive, now excuse me while I pop off to die again!

I think the Time Turner scenario is too confusing. Is Dumbledore supposed to be alive somewhere so he can explain all this to Harry and the Readers, right before using the Time Turner to go back in time to his death? It would just come right out of the blue at the beginning of book 7, and then Dumbledore would be dead again!

Moreover, revealing that Dumbledore has a Time Turner and has been using it is just going to generate more questions than it will answer; Rowling will forever be plagued by questions about why Dumbledore just didn't go back in time and change X or Y, and who else had Time Turners and what were they doing with them. It's way to messy.

Rowling mentioned Time Turners in OotP so she could smash them. She mentioned them in HBP to remind us they got smashed. I think it was a mistake to introduce them in the first place, and now she's trying to remove them from the plot. I think her purpose in PoA wasn't to go all bad scifi on us, but to show the implications of different choices made, and how misconceptions can snowball over time. She was using the gimmick metaphorically. I think if she shows Dumbledore was manipulating things through a Time Turner, it will just look plain gimmicky (and bad scifi gimmicky, at that).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 26, 2006 7:10 pm (#490 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 8:19 pm

SE- Understood. I didn't mean to imply he actually saw a boggart, but that Jo said we could guess what his boggart would be based on book 6.

His family? Perhaps. I just can't get past the thought that on some level DD must feel a little guilt over the abuse Severus endured, just because he existed...

Did the abuse, the lack of appreciation for his talent, and the lure of LV prove to be too much? Not excusing, Snape, mind you, he made choices, but were those choices made easier by James, Sirius, and, because it was his school, DD?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 26, 2006 7:16 pm (#491 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 8:23 pm

Actually, her sci-fi in PoA was very good. She never deviated from the rules Hawkings presents in "A Brief History of Time", which I somehow can't see her reading, which makes it even more amazing. However, when you get into the more complicated things like going back so you can die (which actually wouldn't be a paradox because it doesn't do anything to break the cycle and thus isn't bad sci-fi), it gets harder for readers to follow, especially readers who aren't into the sci-fi genre and science in general. Most of the things like "why did DD go back and fix this or that" are explained with paradoxes, and since you can't create a paradox, it can't happen, but again, in a fantasy/heroic epic genre, the majority of your fan base just isn't going to follow it very well. That's one of the main reasons I don't think she'll mess around with time again.

T Vrana, yeah, I knew what you were getting at, and I agree, whatever he saw would be what his boggart would represent as it was obviously something he didn't want to witness and which caused him immense pain.

--I just can't get past the thought that on some level DD must feel a little guilt over the abuse Severus took, just because he existed...--

I somehow don't think so. Look at how awful Snape is to his students, especially Neville. He's letting Snape bully people the way he was bullied. It's even worse because Snape is an authority figure to Neville, not an equal. If one kid picks on another, the kid can tell the teacher, but if the teacher picks on the kid, who does the kid tell? DD feels teachers like Snape are a fact of life that his students will need to experience, and I think he would've thought the same about peer bullies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 26, 2006 7:34 pm (#492 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 8:34 pm

you can't create a paradox

I confess I haven't read A Brief History of Time. But if this is relevant, paradoxes can be created in Rowling's version of time travel. Wizard's have ended up killing off their past or future selves. If a past wizard is killed, he's not going to be using that Time Turner, but apparently he does anyway-- so, paradox.

I always wondered what happens to the other wizard when his past or future self gets snuffed. Can your soul go off on the next great adventure if it's still in use?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 26, 2006 7:36 pm (#493 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 8:55 pm

But then why the need to make Lupin prefect if he was totally comfortable with it?

The difference for Severus is that he seems to have no one on his side. No one, except Lily, came forward when Snape was attacked by two wizards. Harry, for instance, is surrounded by people who care for him and support him, so Snape's abuse is more easily tolerated.

I think DD can feel some guilt for not realizing that young Severus might not have had any support and was feeling completely alone, and might turn to someone like LV who made him feel safe, important, whatever. Doesn't make DD wrong, Snape made choices.

But imagine if you were in a position of power and felt that certain things, though unpleasant, make you stronger. So you allow some not so pleasant things to occur. You later hear that someone you knew was struggling, lost it and hurt others. Your fault? No. Choices. Would you feel that maybe you should have seen this kid could not handle what some others can? That he was pushed too far? His character flaw, but your misread.

I'm really not making excuses for Snape. But I think DD can still feel some responsibility, rightly or wrongly.

EDIT- I should aDD that DD is the type that feels more responsible for others. For instance, he takes responsibility for Sirius' death. Yes, he is somewhat repsonsible for not telling Harry more, but in reality, DD made it completely clear that he wanted Harry to study Occlumency, and Harry ignored DD 's request. In fat, several people, Lupin, Sirius, Hermione, told Harry to study Occlumency. He didn't. But DD feels responsible...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 26, 2006 8:23 pm (#494 of 1629)
Edited Oct 26, 2006 9:24 pm

I didn't say Dumbledore was completely comfortable with it, and I do think he wanted James and Sirius to calm down in general (hence making Lupin prefect; or maybe that was for Lupin's benefit, teach him to stand up to his friends as Neville had to do?). And, I wasn't comparing Snape's situation with Harry but with Neville. We never see Neville with any particular friends. Harry, Ron and Hermione are always together. Lavander and Parvati are always together. Seamus and Dean are always together. Neville seems to always be either by himself or with another group, not with a group of his own. What's to prevent Neville from being pushed too far, and yet Dumbledore allows Snape to continue to teach, doesn't seem to do anything about his teaching methods, etc. I honestly do think what Snape has done to Neville is far worse than what James did to Snape. You're supposed to be able to trust and confide in your authority figures, especially as a kid, not feel threatened and bullied by them (the kid is so freaked out by Snape that his boggart takes on Snape's appearance). That being said, I do feel Dumbledore has realized that Snape needs a father figure who will show trust in and respect for him, no matter what, which he has done with regard to Snape for as long as we've seen him as a teacher, probably ever since Snape turned up wanting to come back over to the "good" side.

Anyway, my whole point was that I don't think what we saw in the cave with regards to DD's boggart-like visions revolves around Snape.

Mrs Brisbee --But if this is relevant, paradoxes can be created in Rowling's version of time travel.—

That's kinda what I meant. The sequence we see with Harry and Hermione in PoA is very good sci-fi and theoretically possible (in terms of not creating a paradox). However, other explanations we get don't follow the rules for making time-travel possible and thus shouldn't be explored, in my opinion. As you said, "what happens to the other wizard when his past or future self gets snuffed"? That "what happens if" question will pop up more and more the more often time-travel is encountered and, if she allows for paradoxes (as you say, she already has) then the writing gets sloppier and sloppier. It makes things way too messy to try to get around writing yourself into a hole. I don't think we'll see time-turners again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 26, 2006 8:32 pm (#495 of 1629)

To me that liquid was some kind of a liquid boggart. Dumbledore clearly was suffering because he felt he could not protect someone. (Has anyone got the exact quote... I do not where I am now.) I assumed at first it was his students, but maybe it wasn't. His biggest fear was probably letting someone down, not death itself. He clearly had no fear of death and saw it as a natural process. But if he felt he was losing control of the situation, and it might cause Snape and Draco, among others, problems (That vow again!) that would make SOME sense to me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 27, 2006 12:10 am (#496 of 1629)
Edited Oct 27, 2006 1:13 am

I always wondered what happens to the other wizard when his past or future self gets snuffed. Can your soul go off on the next great adventure if it's still in use? — Mrs Brisbee

That would depend on your view of time and temporal paradoxes.

Is time linear or cyclical?

If time is linear than going back in time would create an alternate reality that splits from the reality you came from, since time can only move forward. Any change you made in the past then would affect the new timeline rather than the one you came back from. Since there are now two realities after the split, then each entity would have a seperate soul for each timeline. Thus each soul would be independently handled.

If time is cyclical and loops back on itself then the changes you make in the past WILL affect your direct future where you came from, this could cause a paradox. If you went back in time and killed your younger self, then you never grew up to go back in time to kill yourself, but you did just that…PARADOX ALERT! If the past self dies, the then future self never existed and their is only one soul to resolve. If the future self dies, then it was meant to be and doesn't affect the past self as the past self will eventually continue through time and become the future self that went back in time to die in the past. Again only one soul to resolve.

I hope that explains for those wanting an analogy or explanation. If you are one of the school of thought that the dead DD is a future self, then that would mean a past self is still around and living to further help Harry. Which would mean like Harry casting the Patronus it was meant to happen because it already had happened in the past. There is where I find a flaw in JKR’s comment about none of the characters are from the future. Harry and Hermione technically are from the future. Hermione more so after a year’s worth of time turning. Since the future DD died on the tower then of the remaining living characters none have come back from the future. Simply because the future characters have died off or been removed from time in the cycle of living back through the time before the time turner was used, Harry and Hermione being prime examples.

That would just mean where is the present Albus and what has he been doing?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Saracene - Oct 27, 2006 1:49 am (#497 of 1629)

wynnleaf:

---I can only assume that some people (not just you Die) just don't believe those of us who say we don't personally care if DD is alive or not. I can understand people doubting that, but please don't.

I really don't care. It's purely the puzzle I care about. That's it. DD being dead in the obvious manner doesn't answer the puzzle. And I really, really like puzzles.---


To be totally nitpicky, wynnleaf, Dumbledore's death did involve one other person that, unless I'm mistaken, you do care about. A reader may not be emotionally invested in Dumbledore, but if they are invested in Snape in one way or another and don't really like the idea of Snape being Dumbledore's killer, then, in an indirect way, they would have an interest in DD being alive. Heck, I myself am one of them; though I personally never doubted that DD was dead I did entertain the idea of him coming back, partly because I wondered about the Phoenix symbolism but also because, deep down, I was hoping that Snape would be let off the hook. I've seen it work the other way around too: some readers who don't care about Snape nevertheless don't want him to be evil because they care about DD and really hate the idea of him being so wrong.

I'm not suggesting BTW that I think that the only reason for your speculations about DD's death/non-death is being protective of Snape; I agree with you that there's a puzzle in there. But I think there are reasons for readers to care about DD being alive other than liking DD.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 27, 2006 5:56 am (#498 of 1629)
Edited Oct 27, 2006 7:13 am

se- I actually see Snape's position when bullied by the Marauders as much, much worse.

Everyone knows Snape is a nasty, bullying teacher, Neville included. So Neville is not isolated with Snape bullying him, and everyone watching and laughing. While Neville may not have the kind of friendships we see others enjoying, he is not alone. And the bullying is over the top criticism of his work, not hanging him upside down in front of an encouraging crowd, threatening to remove his undergarments.

Severus, as a teen, on the other hand, is bullied, physically attacked and humiliated by two wizards (a bit cowardly if you ask me) in front of a large group of cheering, laughing and at the mildest, curious onlookers.

I'm not condoning what Snape does to his students, but when measuring the effect of the bullying on the one being bullied, I think it is important to understand what the recipient of the bullying is feeling.

The isolation from your fellow wizards is the key here. If you know you are not alone, you can endure much more. Neville knows he is not alone. Severus seems to be.

Put yourself in their shoes. Neville is in a class with a bunch of his fellow Gryffindors who all get some abuse. They are united in house, in experience, in hating Snape.

Now take Severus, who is completely alone. He not only has his tormentors, he also has a crowd willing to participate on one level or another. Just watching IS participating. Laughing and cheering, of course, even worse.

Isolation is a really terrible thing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 27, 2006 8:32 am (#499 of 1629)

Saracene said: To be totally nitpicky, wynnleaf, Dumbledore's death did involve one other person that, unless I'm mistaken, you do care about. A reader may not be emotionally invested in Dumbledore, but if they are invested in Snape in one way or another and don't really like the idea of Snape being Dumbledore's killer, then, in an indirect way, they would have an interest in DD being alive. Heck, I myself am one of them; though I personally never doubted that DD was dead I did entertain the idea of him coming back, partly because I wondered about the Phoenix symbolism but also because, deep down, I was hoping that Snape would be let off the hook. I've seen it work the other way around too: some readers who don't care about Snape nevertheless don't want him to be evil because they care about DD and really hate the idea of him being so wrong.

Well, while I tend to think through the problem of what occurred with DD from a puzzle perspective, it is true that I have an emotional investment in it due to Snape. BUT that is not because it matters one way or the other whether DD is actually dead. I really don't care too much for the sake of the character if he died or not.

JKR often comments that she has put Harry through a lot and she has said that if she could invite a character to dinner, she'd first like Harry so she could apologize.

If Snape is loyal to DD, then JKR has similarly put that character through a huge amount also. It does sometimes disturb me that, if Snape is loyal, she would put the character in a position of killing the one person who trusts him and the one person who he probably trusts. It concerns me that, if Snape is loyal, she took a loyal character and forced him to murder the person he was loyal to. It disturbs me that, if Snape is loyal and killed DD at his request, JKR is going to have to tell us later that it was a right thing not only for Snape to do, but a right thing to ask of him. It also concerns me that, if Snape killed DD at his request without a prior plan, she has cut off a loyal character from the rest of the good guys, condemned as a murderer, without a prior plan of proving his loyalty or what actually occurred on the tower. If these things occurred with a well-liked loyal character, I suppose I wouldn't feel quite so concerned about it, because there'd be the feeling that the character would be getting some support from other characters, but in Snape's case, it doesn't look like there'd be any other support. So yes, I will agree that there is a personal involvement with the outcome, but it isn't exactly based on the question of simply whether or not DD is alive or dead at the end of HBP, but on the manner JKR may have chosen to kill him off.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 27, 2006 9:07 am (#500 of 1629)
Edited Oct 27, 2006 10:13 am

I think we will find that Snape is not totally evil, but he is flawed and that flaw will trace somewhat back to his time at Hogwarts and his experience there.

Yes, Snape arrived a greasy kid knowing more about Dark Arts than anyone at school, but that knowledge does not, and did not, make him evil. In reality, all these years later, Snape's immense knowledge of the Dark Arts has come in quite handy.

Sirius tries to blow off James behavior by blaming it on the Dark Arts stuff, but James did say "just because he exists".

DD knew the bullying was a big enough problem to make Lupin a prefect, but he did not step in. I think it can be easily argued that if Snape was as isolated as he seemed to be, leaving him out there on his own, helped him to seek out a place to fit in. (Jo has also commented that DD remains aloof longer than she could, or something like that).

I do think Snape's return was genuine. I'm sure he found that being a DE was not for him. I also think he enjoyed having DDs trust and some power.

I had wondered if Snape felt let down by DD that night on the tower, but could he have also felt let down earlier. If DD asked for Snape's help in protecting Malfoy, could part of Snape, that part which is still a bullied teenager (remember his explosions are always about the Marauders, and he's still a big greasy kid in a way), have resented the lengths DD is willing to go to protect Draco, but how little he did to protect him?

Sorry for the run on sentences and jumpy transitions. In a hurry. Hope you get the idea.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 501 to 525

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 8:45 pm



shadzar - Oct 27, 2006 12:55 pm (#501 of 1629)
Edited Oct 27, 2006 1:55 pm


Draco = James wherein Harry = Snape?

So if DD was the protector of both Harry and Snape, how would it affect Snape's character to have killed DD if he was the ones looking out for Snape?

Or, that DD didn't look out for Snape so he let those feelings of repressed need fuel the AK he cast?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 27, 2006 1:04 pm (#502 of 1629)

Draco = James wherein Harry = Snape?

I don't get this. ?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 27, 2006 1:21 pm (#503 of 1629)

T Vrana,

I think shadzar is referring to character parallels. You know, like where DD said that James and Snape hated each other similarly to how Harry and Draco hated each other?

Just a guess. I might be wrong.

So if DD was the protector of both Harry and Snape, how would it affect Snape's character to have killed DD if he was the ones looking out for Snape?

Fan fiction stories have often addressed this question and it's interesting how the better writers work it out. Assuming Snape is loyal, it all depends on what the relationship was between DD and Snape. It does seem that the closer the relationship, the worse it would affect Snape's character to kill DD. You can go from pure employer through types of mentors, to a father figure, or you can think of Snape as seeing DD as the master manipulator. What you get is everything from simple "get the job done," to resentment, to a kind of emotional patricide which is simply awful.

This just gets at more reasons why I really don't like the idea that JKR had Snape kill DD, and am happy to puzzle through the clues that she didn't do things that way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 27, 2006 2:31 pm (#504 of 1629)

I think shadzar is referring to character parallels.

Yes, parallel analogies. 100% correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 27, 2006 3:03 pm (#505 of 1629)

shadzar- I see the parallels, but that's not really where I was going. I just wonder if Snape bears some ill will toward DD for not doing a better job of protecting him when he was a student. DD remained detached and tried to rein James and Sirius in from afar though Lupin, but wasn't successful.

I think Snape respects and resents DD, admires him and holds him responsible for the Marauders. He sees him as a father figure, almost, who failed him. When he sees DDs weakened condition on the tower is he angry that DD has let him down again, and that DD risked so much for Draco, when he did so little for Snape as a student? Now Snape is back to DE full time, and hunted as a murderer.

I don't like this theory. Like Wynnleaf, I do not want Snape to have killed DD. But I do wonder if this is where Jo is taking us. That the Marauders and DD played a role in Snape being in the position to give LV the prophesy, and now all three are dead.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 27, 2006 3:45 pm (#506 of 1629)

--This just gets at more reasons why I really don't like the idea that JKR had Snape kill DD, and am happy to puzzle through the clues that she didn't do things that way.—

So, it would seem Saracene had a point. I'm curious if others who keep insisting that the puzzle involves "did Snape actually kill Dumbledore" or "is Dumbledore really dead" have similar views? Is an insistence that there is a puzzle about how/when/if Dumbledore died based on what that would do to Snape in respect to his character and on an emotional investment in him?

I'm sorry, it's just, psychologically speaking, I find this line of thinking very interesting. I'm actually pretty indifferent to Snape so I'm really not too bothered by the idea of him being the one to kill Dumbledore. I even theorized, before HBP came out, that he'd be the one to appear to kill Dumbledore (again, before HBP; I'm quite sure he killed him now). I can see how it could work in several ways in terms of advancing the overall plot and rather expected Snape's involvement, so seeing him off Dd really wasn't that big a surprise. To others who take the stance of "Dd's dead and Snape killed him, no mystery about that; the puzzle's all about the circumstances surrounding the death, not whether the death happened", do you have a similar view of the situation in terms of emotional investment in characters?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 27, 2006 5:03 pm (#507 of 1629)
Edited Oct 27, 2006 6:10 pm

For me it’s the clues, and the fact that we have never been led from Chapter 2 (DD is going to die and Snape will do it) to the end in such a straight line.

My biggest fear, about the time I give in and admit DD is dead, Harry Potter and the Really Devious Author will be published and Jo will say "Ha!".

No, my bigget fear, actually, is that DD was clueless. I really hope Jo didn't go there...

He can be dead, no problem, but Malfoy can't have had the last word, 'stupid old man'? No way.

As for Snape, I think it would be a waste to reduce him to just another evil wizard. So I guess I'm invested in him fulfilling his promise as a redemptive character, with major flaws, but not evil. I don't think it is emotional so much as wanting a well written character and book.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 27, 2006 5:17 pm (#508 of 1629)
Edited Oct 27, 2006 6:18 pm

Indeed, T Vrana. The fact that I have a side interest in how JKR handles things for Snape's character is not the prime motivator for deliberating so much over the clues and the possibilities of what was going on with Dumbledore.

But I'm glad that the personal aspect of Snape's character was brought up because I think there's a way to get others to see how I feel about JKR writing that DD was killed by one his loyal supporters.

Suppose instead of Snape, JKR had written that DD got out of the cave and realized that due to the liquids he'd had in the cave, he was dying and would turn into an inferi (this has been hypothesized as a reason he needed Snape to kill him). DD, not having made it back to Hogwarts, begs Harry to kill him. It's "Harry please..." instead. And JKR writes it that Harry has to kill DD -- full of self-hatred and revulsion, of course.

Now - - totally aside from the factors about whether or not he'd be thought a murderer and have to flee, how do you think that would go over? Would that be the kind of thing JKR could justify to the readers? Could JKR convince you that it was okay to put Harry into this situation? That she could convince 9 and 10 year olds that it was okay for Harry to kill his mentor and teacher? That Harry was going to be okay with it and it wouldn't totally mess him up?

Just food for thought.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 28, 2006 12:19 am (#509 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 1:22 am

You know, wynnleaf, in a way Jo has already made Harry responsible for the death of two "good guys." Well, not totally responsible, as he did not do the actual AK'ing. But, if he had not insisted that he and Cedric both grab the Cup, Cedric would still be alive. And if he had made more of an effort at his Occlumency lessons and/or had not rushed to the MOM that night, Sirius wouldn't have had to come (along with the other Order members) and rescue him; and be killed in the processes.

Obviously, that is not as direct as the example you gave above, but one can tell from canon that even Harry himself feels guilty for both Diggory and Black's deaths (although ultimately Voldemort is to blame - which would also be the case in the example you speculated on). They are both burdens Jo has given Harry that he has to live with and will have to live with for the rest of his life. And it is something those child readers of the HP series have not been shielded from either.

If Jo had had Harry kill DD, I can only assume she would write it and explain it in such a way that her young readers would feel badly but would understand in the end that Harry did "what was right, not what was easy."

Of course, it makes a lot more sense from a literary device point of view to have the most ambiguous character in the series perform this awful task. More room for speculation as to whether - as many have thought from the first - DD was a fool to trust Severus (as Ron once said, "a poisonous toadstool cannot change its spots" or something like that.) or, as Hermoine and Lupin have always declared, "Dumbledore trusts Snape, and I trust Dumbledore, so I trust Snape." (until that Tower incident, at least)

Guess I have every confidence that, *if* Snape turns out to be on the good side, Jo will be able to more than adequately explain exactly what happened on the Astronomy Tower - and why - to all her readers.

(On a personal note, I would question if HBP or even OoP is appropriate for nine or 10 year olds, but that is off topic so forget I said it.)

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 28, 2006 4:39 am (#510 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 6:58 am

Laura- Harry is not at all to blame for Cedric's death. He may feel somewhat responsible because his noble offer brought Cedric to the graveyard, but Harry and Cedric were both caught in a trap set by LV. LV and Wormtail killed Cedric.

In Sirius's death, Harry can feel a bit guilty that he did not make a better effort at Occlumency, but Sirius's death has a few guilty parties. Snape never should have stopped trying to teach Harry (admittedly Harry wasn't making an effort even when he was getting lessons, and Harry had no right to pry into Snape's thoughts), Sirius had direct instructions to stay put, but he is least guilty, no decent person would have stayed home knowing Harry was in danger. But again, it was LV and the DEs who laid the trap. It was Bella who killed Sirius.

In this genre, I do not think the hero can murder the great, good wizard. Nor could any truly good character. It is one of the reasons so many like this genre. There are truly good guys and truly bad guys. The good guy can make mistakes, suffer losses, feel regret and sorrow, but must remain good and will never do certain things. It is even questionable if DD killed Grindelvald, and if Harry will directly kill LV.

I agree Snape is ambiguous enough to appear to kill DD. I do not think he will turn out to be good if he killed DD. He will be flawed and do something to redeem himself, but then I think at some point he may have to pay for the deaths he has caused. I think ultimately Harry may have to forgive end try to save Snape. But that's for another post.

To introduce an epic hero who kills the great good wizard would be terrible. As for nine and ten year olds reading OOTP, among the little 'tragedies' that keeps a student out of class? Growing antlers. Jo is covering some great life issues here, but it is kid friendly. I have some reservations about HBP for my nine year old, but am hoping Jo has remained consistent and we will have a kid friendly answer to the tower scene.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 28, 2006 5:19 am (#511 of 1629)

Laura and T Vrana,

I think that Salmon Rushdie meant something very similar to T Vrana when he said that if Snape is good, he can't have killed DD. Rushdie isn't naive enough to think that it's impossible for a loyal person to find themselves in a situation when, for the greater good, they have to end the life of another person. This can happen, and it can work in certain types of fiction. But I think Rushdie was basically saying the same thing as T Vrana. In the HP books, someone on the good side can't kill DD.

Now Rushdie reasoned it out that therefore DD wasn't dead. I can see that there could be other possibilities in which Snape didn't kill DD, but DD is still dead. Notice that JKR didn't answer Rushdie by saying, "Snape killed DD," but by saying "DD is dead." They are not necessarily the same thing.

And I think Rushdie's opinion was right. It boils down to whether or not Snape is good. If Snape is good, he didn't kill DD. Not because it couldn't happen in some plot somewhere else, but because it wouldn't happen in these books.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 28, 2006 9:46 am (#512 of 1629)

I still think it's possible a Snape with good intentions killed DD if tha's what DD wanted, and what DD knew needed to have happen before the plot could further unfold.

Snape is a gray character, very complex, and always has been. It's too simplistic for me to just say, if he's good, he can't have killed DD.

This is reinforced by the fact that the Dumbledore I know would willingly die if he had to protect someone else, and that he didn't fear death the way others do, but saw it as a natural thing that comes to everyone, and the path to the next great adventure.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 28, 2006 10:23 am (#513 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 11:57 am

T Vrana, of course I do not think that Harry is to blame for Cedric's death. Nonetheless, it says more than once in Book Five that he is worried that he will be blamed (mostly by Cho) and that he is so relieved that he is not being held responsible (mostly by Cho). Only a person who feels somewhat guilty would entertain such thoughts. There is also no question that he feels somewhat guilty about Sirius. There is a passage in OoP where it says that he feels good blaming Sanpe for Sirius' death because it eases his own guilt feelings about same.

And if DD, slowly dying in agony after drinking the green potion in the cave, begged Harry to release him from this torture as per wynnleaf's scenario, in the same way he insisted Harry feed him the potion (as much as it killed Harry to be causing his greatest protector such pain by forcing him to keep drinking), the question is how the readers - apparently especially nine and 10 year olds - would take to that.

As I said, they (we) have already had to deal with Harry doing things which resulted in deaths of good men. The fact that his motives in both instances were born entirely of kindness, caring and nobility almost makes the results all the more tragic and heart-wrenching. Exactly as Jo planned them to be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add this strongly-felt but admittedly minority opinion --

To me, the whole "doing what is right; not what is easy" thing - something that is stressed more than once in the novels, - is her way of giving good characters (Snape? Harry? who knows who else in Book Seven?) permission to do things that both we and they would normally be horrified about but which, in this case, they have been morally forced to do, because of their innate goodness, for the greater good or as an act of self-sacrifice to either another human being or to all of wizardkind. And it is something that they will have to live with and will haunt them - if they are truly decent human beings which, for the sake of this argument, they are - for the rest of their lives. Along with so many other things in the HP series, this is often the way real-life operates.

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 28, 2006 10:56 am (#514 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 12:10 pm

Laura- I understood that you knew Harry was not to blame, and that he feels guilty for both. I went through the whole explanation to show the difference between feeling responsible and being responsible, for another's death. No matter how guilty Harry feels for either death, he can't in any way be called a murderer.

Doing things that result in a death, when the intention is not to kill anyone, is very different from AKing someone, knowing they will die, even if they were already dying and it was an act of mercy. One scenario, you make a mistake and someone dies at the hand of another. The other you are, with intent, trying to kill someone.

If Harry were a real person in a real life situation and felt he could ease DD's suffering, would he do it? Perhaps. But we are not dealing with real life. Epic heroes do not kill the wise, old wizard, neither do the good guys.

Yes, Harry has done things that result in tragedy, death, loss and sorrow. All of these fit the genre. Good guys killing, with intent, good guys, just does not.

For those who feel this scenario is possible, good guy kills good guy, in this genre, do we have an example?

DIE- Snape's shade of grey makes him eligible. He just can't show up in book 7 as "white", if he killed DD.

EDIT- Of course, Jo can do whatever she wants to do. We are speculating that she will remain true to the genre and her first 6 books.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 28, 2006 11:16 am (#515 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 12:24 pm

I understand, T. I was talking very specifically about what has happened (ie - what I have observed, what Jo has had occur) in the HP series; and you were talking more generally about how things play out - as a rule - in a whole genre of writing. Fantasy, heroic epics of good verses evil, children's books, or whatever. Have I got the picture? (hopeful grin)

I cannot speak to the whole genre thing as knowledgeably as many of you as I have not read fantasy books since childhood - like a thousand years ago - and did not read many of them then. (Although I have read fiction voraciously all my life, fantasy and/or science fiction has never been a big interest of mine; not even as a child or teenager.) So, when I talk about the HP books - be it in the realm of plot, character, writing style, messages imparted, relationship to the real world, ethics and morality, literary devices, dialogue, pacing, emotional and intellectual impact, etc.-, I am speaking *only* of them.

Having said that, and trying to tentatively move into your world of genres for a moment, I ask you this purely as a speculative question, T Vrana (and anyone else). Is it possible that the Harry Potter books are somewhat like others of their genre but are also different enough, as Jo Rowling deliberately set them out to be, that some of the ordinary rules of the genre are not going to be followed? That Jo *will* have a good guy (Snape?) kill a good guy (DD) for an incredibly noble reason, and that she will be able to explain it in such a way that children can feel badly about the death of the greatest wizard in the world but also understood why it had to be done and by whom? Remember, allowing that this is not normal in this genre - assuming it's not; I wouldn't know -, can it not just be another of the many, many clever HP series twists we have seen in all the novels to date? I'm just asking.

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 28, 2006 11:26 am (#516 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 12:43 pm

laura- the whole "doing what is right; not what is easy" thing - something that is stressed more than once in the novels, - is her way of giving good characters (Snape? Harry? who knows who else in Book Seven?) permission to do things that both we and they would normally be horrified about but which, in this case, they have been morally forced to do, because of their innate goodness, for the greater good or as an act of self-sacrifice to either another human being or to all of wizardkind.

Example? The only thing close is the potion in the basin, and DD assured Harry it would not kill him.

Doing what is right, not what is easy, is not, in my opinion, a permission slip to do horrible things, nor do I think Jo intended that interpretation at all. This message refers to Harry's need to go after LV, though it will cost him dearly, sitting in a train car with the "geeks" when the 'cool kids' invite you to their car, standing up to the MoM rather than becoming their poster boy, telling the WW that LV is back, and continuing to tell them even when it means detention with Umbridge's pen, being thought a fame seeking prat, or a nut etc.

EDIT- To answer the above post. I would place HP in Epic Hero and Children's Literature, but not fantasy. Fantasy, I think, does not have to follow the same rules as epic hero. Epic hero is bound by the larger than life, good vs evil, truly good vs truly evil characters. Snape is, in this scenario gray at best, if he killed DD. He doesn't get to wear the white hat if he AKd the good wizard. Understand, I do think Snape can have killed DD and can still do something that turns out to be good for the good side. He can redeem himself. But he will, I think, have to pay for his past bad deeds with his life. I think Harry will also have to forgive him and try to save him. While Snape owed James (and thus I think Harry), a life debt, I think Harry owes Severus something for the horrible treatment Snape received at James' hands. This is where Lily's contribution will come in.

If Snape survives, he will be miserable. I think a redeeming death is his best shot.

Can Jo do something different. Yes, but I can't see why she would at this point. Sort of like ending a great classical piece of music with a heavy metal guitar solo. It can be done, but why do it?



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Annie Infante - Oct 28, 2006 11:57 am (#517 of 1629)

I'm new to this thread, so forgive me if I have missed some of the ideas mentioned here. I have just spent a long time reading with interest most of the posts. I will be going back a ways, therefore, to comment on some of the ideas put forth earlier. I hope that is okay.

DD's thoughts in a bottle: Could he have bottled thoughts and then put them in a safe place to be retrieved later by Harry using the "jam" password? Perhaps the memory showing why he trusts Snape or how his hand was damaged. I think Jo has mentioned, via DD, what a good story that is too many times to not have it be significant. Somehow it has to figure into Book 7. I also think her definite mention of the thoughts being taken out before DD goes to the cave shows that DD was preparing for the worst by ensuring that Harry has access to vital information.

T Vrana (I think) points out that DD had a definite plan and that he admitted to deviating from the plan because his love for Harry made him wish to protect him. To me that was a very interesting reminder, in light of recent events, of an earlier conversation between DD and Harry. Dumbledore may at first have had a plan to save the WW from Voldemort which later became complicated by his love for Harry. DD says as much in the book. I guess I agree that DD and Snape in some way, shape, or form had a plan (perhaps revised from DD's origainal plan) in which the outcome would be DD's death.

The time turner theories put forth by Soul Search and others would be plausible in a way, but I hope that Jo doesn't resort to that for the simple reason that it makes my head hurt trying to wrap my brain around time travel of any sort! Would DD have been a wise enough wizard to be able to handle a future self walking in on him? Probably, I mean he is (was) Dumbledore after all. But it isn't really necessary for DD to be alive.

I have wondered how Harry is supposed to get to the point where he can find and destroy Horcruxes with only help from Ron and Hermione. Someone mentioned Bill earlier though and I thought "Of course!" Who better to play a bigger part in Harry's life than a curse breaker for Gringotts? So there will be others to take Dumbledore's place in practical matters, there has to be unless Harry suddenly becomes a wizard genius. What is sad is that Harry lost someone who truly loved him. Yes the people we love never really leave us and all that, but that isn't much help when we need to talk to them in a real way. Portraits and ghosts etc. aside , that is what Harry no longer has from DD.

I have posted elsewhere that I just hope she gives us closure on all the characters we have come to like so much. Especially Dumbledore because there are so many questions raised after reading the books that it would be cruel not to learn more about him even though he is dead. For instance all the questions surrounding his unusual death. I had better keep reading this thread. You all have such thought provoking ideas! Thanks!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 28, 2006 12:02 pm (#518 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 1:28 pm

Laura- This good guy thing works in reverse, too, I think. DD, the epitome of goodness, can ask Harry to force feed him the potion because he is sure he will not die. He can't ask Snape to AK him, if he knows he is going to die from the AK.

Imagine the conversation with Snape.

“Severus, I'm concerned about Draco.”

“As am I, headmaster.”

“Well look, we can't have the boy tearing his soul, so, you need to tear yours.”

“What!”

“I want you to AK me, and save the Malfoy boy from tearing his soul.”

“What about my soul!?!”

“Oh, come on Severus, it's for the good of the WW!”

“No.”

“For Draco?”

“No!”

“For me?”

“No!!”

“Oh, come on, you were a DE, for goodness sake.”

“Headmaster....!”



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 28, 2006 12:35 pm (#519 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 1:49 pm

Doing what is right, not what is easy, is not, in my opinion, a permission slip to do horrible things, nor do I think Jo intended that interpretation at all.

I didn't say "horrible things." I said "things that both we and they would normally be horrified about."

Sort of like how Harry and Hermoine let their best mate Ron be sacrificed - yes, I know he wasn't actually killed, but was hurt badly enough that it took Hermoine a long time to bring him back to consciousness - in that chess game in PS. The two children really did not want to do it, but knew that it was the only way to gain access to the Stone. Sort of like how, against her own will, in PS Hermoine hexed the lovable Neville with a Full Body-Bind when he tried to stop the trio from going in search of the Stone after they had expressly been told not to. Again, something she hated to do (ie - hurt a friend and good guy), but which Jo gave her permission to in the interest of stopping a bad guy (Snape, as they thought at the time) from causing greater harm to a greater number.

I know that nobody was killed in the two instances I mentioned above, but the principle is the same. Some good guy having to hurt some other good guy - and hating himself for it - for the greater good.

I am not saying this is the case with Snape on the Tower (jury still out on whether Severus *is* a good guy), or that in Book Seven some other good guy(s) - Hagrid, Lupin, any other member of the Order, Harry of course -will have to hurt or kill one of their own as part of that doing-what-is-right-not-what-is-easy mantra, but I think it is very possible.

Especially Harry. The way Jo loves to make her boy wizard suffer, it would be too easy on him for her to just have him kill or wound or get rid of bad guys throughout the war. All he would feel then is a sense of triumph and accomplishment. She has never allowed him that luxury without making him pay for it with great physical and emotional pain after. If, on the other hand, she makes him hurt or kill or be responsible for the death of someone he loves - in the broadest sense of the word - in the course of getting to and destroying Voldemort, ("things that both we and they would normally be horrified about but which, in this case, they have been morally forced to do, because of their innate goodness, for the greater good or as an act of self-sacrifice to either another human being or to all of wizardkind" - Laura W), that will fit both how she has treated him up till now and the right-but-not-easy theme.

The last thing Rowling is is kind to her heroes. Lily and James were killed in their early 20s, Harry has suffered in every way possible since he was 15 months old, Sirius came from a horrible family and spent 12 years in a prison that is beyond words although he was innocent, gentle Lupin has been shunned and denied both employment and love because of an infirmity, the fair-minded decent Cedric Diggory had his life cruelly taken from him at the age of 17; I could go on (and on) giving examples. She likes to make her good guys suffer. And forcing them to do things - for the greater good or as an act of self-sacrifice to either another human being or to all of wizardkind - which they would find repulsive and would haunt them for the rest of their lives would not, in my opinion, be a big disconnect with that which I have seen in her books so far.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding your last post, T Vrana (funny dialogue, by the way - chuckling):

I honestly haven't made up my mind on *that*. That Jo is so crafty! As I wrote some time ago on this thread, "Thing is that it is both out of character (based on specific canon examples) for Dumbledore to ask someone to perform an Unforgivable and it is out of character (based on specific canon examples) for him to beg for his life. Thus the quandary." (sigh)

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 28, 2006 12:58 pm (#520 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 2:25 pm

Hi, Laura-

I see your point, but it isn't about suffering, that is part of the whole epic hero bit, it’s about the line a good guy can't cross. He can indirectly cause a death, or be stuck making a decision that may lead to a death, but he can't be the one to pull the trigger. Jo can make her characters face danger, like the chess set, and make a hard decision, sacrifice Ron, but didn't include a test that required Harry to AK his friends. It’s the line that can't be crossed. Jo can have all the suffering and hard choices without ever making a good character kill a good character.

IMHO

Glad you got a chuckle from the 'conversation'. I couldn't resist...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 28, 2006 4:25 pm (#521 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 5:27 pm

Laura and T Vrana,

Laura's earlier quote that she re-quoted was : "Thing is that it is both out of character (based on specific canon examples) for Dumbledore to ask someone to perform an Unforgivable and it is out of character (based on specific canon examples) for him to beg for his life. Thus the quandary." (sigh)

To which I had replied that I used the Sherlock Holmes axiom. When you've looked at all the possibilities and remove the ones that can't be true, whatever is left must be true.

If DD would not beg to live, nor would DD tell Snape to kill him, then Snape could not have killed DD.

Thus this thread. What happened to DD if Snape's AK was not responsible for killing him?

Cheers!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 28, 2006 4:36 pm (#522 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 5:36 pm

I agree that Dumbledore would not plead for his life, but Dumbledore could have been begging with Snape not to turn his back on the good side by committing murder. So unless we can nail down Dumbledore's motive for pleading with Snape on the Tower, it is impossible to conclude that this prevents Snape from having murdered Dumbledore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 28, 2006 5:11 pm (#523 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 6:14 pm

Well, I'm right back to a plan.

If we agree Severus is not completely evil, let's examine his departure from Hogwarts. He has been at Hogwarts for 17 years. He has worked with DD for 17 years. Even if I knew someone I had worked with for 17 years, and had some modicum of respect for, was dying, or needed to die for the great good of the WW, I would have some emotional reaction, other than sneering and jeering at Harry. So, either Snape is totally evil, or he did not kill DD.

Well, that works for me anyway...

What was he pleading for? Please Snape, pretend to kill me, with a witness, (Snape is not a fool, I imagine he could sense Harry and his wildly trapped emotions) and go back to being a DE in the eyes of all the WW and all the people you have worked with all these years. Yes, I know you have returned to the right side and are desperate to be recognized for all that you have done for me and the Order, but right now I really need you to do this. Please, Severus, do what is right, not what is easy...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

wynnleaf - Oct 28, 2006 5:41 pm (#524 of 1629)
Edited Oct 28, 2006 6:42 pm

Or, T. Vrana, it could be, "please Severus, go ahead with my plan even though you think it's insane and takes too much for granted, and even though we're obviously already off of the exact plan. Please Severus, do it."

I agree that Dumbledore would not plead for his life, but Dumbledore could have been begging with Snape not to turn his back on the good side by committing murder. So unless we can nail down Dumbledore's motive for pleading with Snape on the Tower, it is impossible to conclude that this prevents Snape from having murdered Dumbledore.

Mrs. Brisbee,

DD had a lot of time up there on the tower to assess the situation. And he was pretty calm and able to do so. If DD really was unable to correct the situation himself (too ill, or weak, or whatever), then he absolutely couldn't have Snape die. Because if Snape died up there on the tower, all really was lost.

If Snape didn't AK DD, and therefore died, DD (in this theory too weak to stop Snape from AKing him and therefore too weak to stop the DE's), would be killed by the DE's. No one would be there to lead them quickly from the castle, so they'd stay and continue to injure, maim and perhaps kill. Harry, released from being frozen, would have tried to attack the DE's and perhaps been killed. Or if Snape had tried to fight the DE's prior to dying from the Vow, there'd have been a sort of "fire-fight." Harry was frozen and vulnerable and could be hit.

In the end, with Snape dead, DD would have died. Harry would likely have died (remember the DE crucioing Harry and Snape stopping it?), or been seriously injured. More students killed or injured.

No, DD would have had plenty of time to see what could happen and he would not have wanted Snape to die on that tower.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 28, 2006 11:05 pm (#525 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 12:06 am

T Vrana --In this genre, I do not think the hero can murder the great, good wizard. Nor could any truly good character. It is one of the reasons so many like this genre. There are truly good guys and truly bad guys.--

But, this series doesn't just have "truly good guys" and "truly bad guys". As I've pointed out before, and as JKR herself has pointed out, we see plenty of examples of those who are neither white nor black but grey. We have those who are in the "truly good" (white) side - Dumbledore, Harry - and those who are in the "truly bad" side (black) side - Voldemort - but we also have characters that have characteristics of both sides or who aren't in the "truly' camps - Percy, Umbridge, Mundungus, Snape. Percy hasn't done anything to label himself "evil" exactly and could probably be classified "good", he isn't an Order member but isn't on Dumbledore's side either, he's been a git to his family. Is he "truly good" or "truly bad"? No, neither. Umbridge is quite terrible, maybe even evil, but certainly isn't on Voldemort's side. "Truly bad"? No. Mundungus lies and steals and yet is an Order member and gives Dumbledore necessary information..... You get my point. We aren't dealing with a series where everyone wears either white or black, but where a large number of characters wear grey. You could argue this, in and of itself, in some ways, deviates from the traditional heroic epic. (I don't think I would, though.) The world isn't split into Order members and DEs, white and black, so having a character who, until now, has been characterized as grey, killing a character clearly labelled "white" isn't out of the question, or going against the genre. I think we'll see his grey lighten as he redeems himself. So, the question for me isn't "did JKR have someone completely in the white kill Dumbledore?" but rather "did JKR have someone who may end up in the white kill Dumbledore?"....

--To introduce an epic hero who kills the great good wizard would be terrible.--

I think it's important to remember here that Snape isn't the epic hero. He isn't even a character who's loyalties have been clearly labelled and set out for us. He is grey, intentionally.

Die Zimtzicke --I still think it's possible a Snape with good intentions killed DD if that's what DD wanted, and what DD knew needed to have happen before the plot could further unfold.
Snape is a gray character, very complex, and always has been. It's too simplistic for me to just say, if he's good, he can't have killed DD.--


Exactly!
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 526 to 550

Post  Lady Arabella on Tue May 17, 2011 9:00 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Saracene - Oct 29, 2006 12:00 am (#526 of 1629)

T Vrana

---In this genre, I do not think the hero can murder the great, good wizard. Nor could any truly good character. It is one of the reasons so many like this genre. There are truly good guys and truly bad guys.---

But IMO Snape is neither a "hero" nor a "truly good character". A truly good character would have never joined Voldemort and Death Eaters in the first place. JKR herself had referred to Snape as "a deeply horrible person", "very sadistic teacher", she said she didn't understand why some of the readers loved him. Snape is partly responsible for the deaths of the main hero's parents, he's been horrible to Harry throughout the series. So I think that even if he turns out to have been loyal to DD in the last book and does something truly heroic, Snape will still remain a grey character, never a whitehat.

I definitely don't see JKR writing a story in which Harry is forced to kill Dumbledore, or anyone else he cares about, and then be haunted by his act throughout his whole life. But, even though it may sound cynical, I think that JKR simply might not care about Snape the way she cares about Harry, and could have much, much less qualms about putting him through emotional hell.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 4:10 am (#527 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 5:36 am

SE- I realize, and have pointed out, that there are grey characters. While this genre has black and white, good and evil, characters, it also has grey. Never meant to imply it didn't (how boring if all we had was black & white). The whole point is there are truly good characters, and there are certain things they can't do, because then they would be grey.

--To introduce an epic hero who kills the great good wizard would be terrible.--

Didn't imply Snape is the epic hero. At this point we were discussing whether or not Harry could kill DD.

Umbridge, though not a DE, is evil. There are more kinds of evil than what the DEs put out there. She sent Dementors to attack Harry, which could have ended in two boys losing their souls. Evil.

Saracene- We agree. The quote you used was from a debate on whether Harry could ever kill DD. I have said that if Snape killed DD then he can't be one of the truly good guys. Some have theorized that Snape is truly on the good side and he and DD had a plan for Snape to AK DD. Can't work in this genre. I also agree that Snape may do somehting to redeem himself, but he can never truly be a good guy. He's too flawed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 4:34 am (#528 of 1629)

Mind if I switch gears for a moment?

If Snape is, as many suspect, a grey character, neither truly good or truly evil, and he has worked with DD for 17 years, can we assume anything from his demeanor on exiting Hogwarts?

While many of us expected DD to die in book 6, and we have now discussed it to great lengths, so the 'trauma' of losing the greatest wizard of his time has lost some of its edge, killing the world’s greatest wizard, someone you have worked with for 17 years, is a really big deal. Even if Snape knew it was coming or had to be done, actually doing it has to have an impact.

We know Snape is capable of emotion, he wears his heart quite prominently on his sleeve whenever the Marauders are mentioned, but when Harry first catches up to Snape post-tower, he is jeering and sneering. I would think, if Snape had just killed DD, and is not truly a DE, he would have been very business-like, getting through what had to be done and getting out, no time or emotion to waste on sneering at Harry.

Either DD was killed by Snape, Snape is evil, or... well, is this a realistic reaction of a flawed but somewhat good guy to killing the great good wizard he has worked with for so long?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 29, 2006 4:41 am (#529 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 5:43 am

DD had a lot of time up there on the tower to assess the situation. And he was pretty calm and able to do so. If DD really was unable to correct the situation himself (too ill, or weak, or whatever), then he absolutely couldn't have Snape die. Because if Snape died up there on the tower, all really was lost. – Wynnleaf

I could certainly see Dumbledore not wanting Snape to die if he were truly still on the good side. I just presented another option for what Dumbledore was pleading for, because I often see people hold out that it can only mean one of two things: Dumbledore begging for his life (which he would never do), or pleading with Snape to kill him. There are other logical explainations.

If Snape didn't AK DD, and therefore died, DD (in this theory too weak to stop Snape from AK-ing him and therefore too weak to stop the DE's), would be killed by the DE's. No one would be there to lead them quickly from the castle, so they'd stay and continue to injure, maim and perhaps kill. Harry, released from being frozen, would have tried to attack the DE's and perhaps been killed. Or if Snape had tried to fight the DE's prior to dying from the Vow, there'd have been a sort of "fire-fight." Harry was frozen and vulnerable and could be hit.

Perfect logic. This has been one of the very few scenarios that I can see actually happening. Things have gotten out of control, and Dumbledore and Snape had a contingency plan in place, a vague "if something like X happens and and it looks impossible, you must do Y" sort of thing. It's one of the few things that explains the forest conversation (although, unfortunately, a lot of other things remain unexplained about the whole business. This explanation works beautifully in the microcosm of the Tower scene, but has serious problems when held up to the events of the entire night).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 29, 2006 4:52 am (#530 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 5:53 am

Either DD was killed by Snape, Snape is evil, or... well, is this a realistic reaction of a flawed but somewhat good guy to killing the great good wizard he has worked with for so long?--T Vrana

I'm perfectly happy to go with the "Snape is evil" explanation as being the more surprising and interesting at this point, especially if it allows us to move onto other things in Book 7 (I'm getting a bit bored by Snape after six books of He's-evil!-No-he-isn't! plotting. I'm ready for something else).

But I think Snape wears his sneering, jeering attitude like armor. He is an Occlumens, and can keep his emotions in check up to a point-- though we have seen him lose it, especially when the Marauders are concerned. So I don't see anything in his attitude on fleeing Hogwarts that points to guilt-- or innocence, either.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 29, 2006 5:04 am (#531 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 6:09 am

T Vrana,

You said: We know Snape is capable of emotion, he wears his heart quite prominently on his sleeve whenever the Marauders are mentioned, but when Harry first catches up to Snape post tower, he is jeering and sneering. I would think, if Snape had just killed DD, and is not truly a DE, he would have been very business-like, getting through what had to be done and getting out, no time or emotion to waste on sneering at Harry.

I disagree. JKR used parallel descriptions of Harry and Snape's emotions for when Harry had to give DD the cave potions and when Snape AK'd DD. Harry felt "hatred" for himself and was "repulsed" by what he was doing to DD. JKR had Snape's face while doing the AK filled with "hatred and revulsion," basically the outward description that mirrors Harry's inner description earlier. I think what she wants to indicate there and ultimately show in Book 7 is that both were feeling the same thing. Snape was feeling hatred for himself and was repulsed by what he was doing. I think JKR wants to draw a parallel between Snape and Harry and will likely show us eventually that both feel the same way about DD.

That being the case, I think that Snape's emotions in Flight of the Prince are not solely "sneering and jeering." I think Snape's personality is to do "sneering and jeering" when there's a lot more emotion going on under the surface.

Snape really loses it when Harry calls him a coward a second time. But he doesn't just get angry. JKR uses words and imagery to compare Snape's emotions to those of Fang trapped in the burning house.

I think what we're seeing in Flight of the Prince is Snape trying to get the job done -- leading out the DE's and Draco, protecting Harry from DE's while he runs -- all the while fending off Harry's attacks. But doing this amidst extreme emotion that he's trying to keep in check. So Harry's attacks push Snape to lash out with insults (typical Snape under stress), but those are just the surface. Just underneath is the tumult of emotions that erupts when Harry does his "kill me like you killed him, you coward" comment (sorry, that quote isn't quite right, but I'm not looking it up right now). At that point all of Snape's emotions boil to the surface and he literally lashes out and it's at that point that JKR uses the parallel to Fang in the burning house.

In the Malfoy's Vow thread you said:

Along the same lines, but for a different thread, if Snape had any feelings for DD at all, and I think he did have mixed respect and anger, he was also pretty blasé about killing DD. His impromptu 'lesson' for Harry post tower, shows a sneering, toying, but instructive Snape. I don't think Snape killed DD, unless he's truly evil.

I think what I described above is an indication that JKR does want to show a parallel between Harry's feelings for DD and Snape's feelings. And I think that Snape's flight from the tower was anything, but blase. So if he had killed DD on the tower, I think his reactions are very strong with self hatred and revulsion, and his outward displays of emotions are what one would expect for someone having to keep those emotions in check, get a job done, but was being chased, attacked, and insulted by Harry all the while until he finally blows up.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 5:42 am (#532 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 6:43 am

Wynnleaf-

The second “coward” comment pushes Snape over the edge, I think, because they were just speaking about James. The first coward has little effect on Snape, despite the fact he just killed DD (I still have problem with this). Then, Snape accuses James of stealing and using his curses. Harry says (wandless) something like "kill me like you killed him, coward".

Because the ONLY time we see Snape losing it, it is over the Marauders, Snape's explosion here, I think, indicates Snape is still thinking "James" when Harry says the above.

I agree there seems to be emotion on the tower. But the only display of emotion we see in Flight, relates back to the Marauders.

Mrs. Brisbee- I see your point on the Snape is evil/not evil, give it a rest already, but I fear you will need to endure more Snape is not evil, because-

When Harry is crucio'd by the DE, he assumes Snape is the culprit. Harry assumes Snape is evil (well, after the tower who can blame him?) But I think this assumption and error is foreshadowing a realization Harry will come to in Book 7. Snape is not evil, but as grey as his underpants...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 29, 2006 5:45 am (#533 of 1629)

Snape is not evil, but as grey as his underpants... T Vrana

ROFL!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 29, 2006 5:52 am (#534 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 7:06 am

Because the ONLY time we see Snape losing it, it is over the Marauders, Snape's explosion here, I think, indicates Snape is still thinking "James" when Harry says the above.

The only time we see Snape losing it, previous to this chapter, is over James and Sirius.

So we actually see Snape getting extremely upset over two different people in the past -- James and Sirius. That is high emotion over people he hates. But that should not therefore mean that he only gets upset over people he hates.

While we don't see it, Hagrid describes the forest conversation as though this is another time when Snape is very upset, and it clearly has nothing to do with the Marauders.

Further, if in the Flight of the Prince instance, Snape thinks Harry is referring to James (who Snape did not kill, by the way), it doesn't fit with JKR likening that emotional outburst with Fang's being trapped in the burning house.

So we know that Snape does not solely lose it over James, but also over Sirius and possibly also over what went on in the forest conversation with DD. The "kill me like you killed him," does not clearly relate to James (although Harry and/or Snape may have thought it did), but it more clearly relates to DD. And the parallel with Fang doesn't fit if Snape is thinking of James, but does fit if his emotion is over what just went on with AKing DD.

Therefore, I think his loss of emotion is over current events, not old history over James.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 29, 2006 6:11 am (#535 of 1629)

Further, if in the Flight of the Prince instance, Snape thinks Harry is referring to James (who Snape did not kill, by the way), it doesn't fit with JKR likening that emotional outburst with Fang's being trapped in the burning house.

If we assume Snape was on the side of good because he felt a need to atone (Dumbledore said Snape had regret for his actions), then it does fit. Snape set Voldemort on the path to kill James. Snape's feelings of guilt about his past evil actions may have led directly to the present situation, which might feel akin to being trapped in a house burning out of control, especially if he had been trying all those years to make up for his past actions. So Snape may feel it all started with James. Also, if Snape thinks Harry is talking about James, then he at that moment realized that Harry knows what happened with him turning the Prophecy over to Voldemort. Can't beat that for drama (or melodrama).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 29, 2006 6:20 am (#536 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 7:24 am

Let me go over that scene some. Harry has been trying to hit Snape with spells and Snape deflecting them. Harry calls Snape a coward because he's not fighting back. Then Snape brings up the Marauders and James, but doesn't lose it because he then goes on with the "keep your mouth shut and your mind closed" remark. Harry gets hit by Crucio and Snape stops another DE from doing that.

Harry tries to use Sectumsempra and at that point Snape is no long sneering and jeering, but is "full of rage." Harry tries Levicorpus and Snape with more hatred says:

“You dare use my own spells against me, Potter? It was I who invented them -- I, the Half-Blood Prince! And you'd turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, would you? I don't think so...no!”

Harry had dived for his wand; Snape shot a hex at it and it flew feet away into the darkness and out of sight.

“Kill me then,” panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only rage and contempt. "Kill me like you killed him, you coward --"

“DON'T” -- screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them -- "CALL ME COWARD!"

While Harry may have meant James or may have meant DD, when he says "kill me like you killed him, you coward," I don't think it is the thought of James that is driving Snape's overwhelming emotion. When JKR placed a comparison to Fang's howling while being stuck in the burning house, right in the middle of Snape's screamed order, it puts a strong message on Snape's words that they are coming from a feeling like the frustrated, trapped, burning situation Fang is in.

I just don't see that this can relate to James -- it's not the kind of feelings that Snape has expressed in the past about James. His comments about James don't evoke a sense of being trapped in a burning building. On the other hand, if all that emotion is pouring out because of what just happened on the tower, then the comparison to Fang's situation does make sense.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 6:21 am (#537 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 7:24 am

Further, if in the Flight of the Prince instance, Snape thinks Harry is referring to James (who Snape did not kill, by the way), it doesn't fit with JKR likening that emotional outburst with Fang's being trapped in the burning house.

Actually, I think it fits perfectly! Snape is trapped in this whole thing, in his mind, because of James. If only James had listened he wouldn't be dead, Lily wouldn't be dead, Harry wouldn't be the chosen one etc. And while he may get angry over other things we do not see, we must assume Jo is being consistent with what she shows us. Harry is thinking DD, but Snape is thinking James, whom he DID kill indirectly.

I am such a terrible typist I hate to try and pull out all the explosions Snape has relating to James, but their descriptions are almost identical, Snape losing it, looking inhuman etc.

Snape is trapped, in my opinion, by what he did all those years ago when he took the prophesy to LV. DD calls it his greatest regret, and we know he blames James for not listening (Shrieking Shack, POA).

Also, it is the second coward, linked to James that sent him over the top. If it was about DD why didn't the first coward bother him? He was fresh from AKing DD, why not blow up over the first comment?

“...And you'd turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, would you? I don't think so...no!”

Harry had dived for his wand; Snape shot a hex at it and it flew feet away into the darkness and out of sight.

“Kill me then”, panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only rage and contempt. "Kill me like you killed him, you coward--"

“DON'T”--- screamed Snape, his face SUDDENLY demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them---"CALL ME COWARD!"

The emphasis on “suddenly” is mine. But why is this second coward such a big deal to Snape. Moments after killing DD, and moments before this, Harry called him coward and Snape sneered at him.

Harry is thinking of DD, as he is without a wand, just like DD, but I think Snape is thinking about James and does feel responsible for his death, and trapped in a life debt problem since his info led to James death, and despite trying to save James, failed. And, perhaps he had a chance to physically save James, but his fear of LV stopped him. So he owed James this debt, not only did he endanger James, but then failed to save James that night, physically, out of fear, left the debt unpaid and saved himself. Coward.

EDIT_ MRS B- we crossed posted, I agree. Nice short analysis, too!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 6:36 am (#538 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 7:41 am

wynnleaf- We HAVE seem similar reactions. POA in the Shack

“KEEP QUIET, YOU STUPID GIRL!” Snape shouted, looking SUDDENLY quite deranged.."

A little later in the Shack:

“SILENCE! I WILL NOT BE SPOKEN TO LIKE THAT!“ Snape shrieked, looking madder than ever. "Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black--"

I can't think it is a coincidence. The descriptions are too similar, and Snape had NO reaction to the first coward, which came right after he 'killed' DD.

Snape is trapped by the biggest regret of his life and what he did or didn't do, I think.

EDIT- Later in POA, after Sirius escapes:

“THEY HELPED HIM ESCAPE, I KNOW IT! Snape howled...”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 29, 2006 6:39 am (#539 of 1629)

The emphasis on suddenly is mine. But why is this second coward such a big deal to Snape. Moments after killing DD, and moments before this, Harry called him coward and Snape sneered at him.

I think the difference is easy to explain. The first time Harry calls him coward it's a "Fight back, you coward.." That's clearly a shout of "you're a coward because you're not fighting me," kind of remark that's easy to disregard. But when Harry calls Snape a coward for killing DD, that is far, far worse. Further, to an extent Snape probably feels like it's cowardly. If the Vow is about killing DD, then Snape's AKing him (regardless of any plan of DD's) enables Snape to live. That would feel really cowardly, in spite of being ordered by DD to do it. Even if nothing was as it seemed, Snape knows he still looked like a coward up on the tower -- AKing a wandless, ill old wizard who had done so much for him. He'd hate that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 29, 2006 6:43 am (#540 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 7:44 am

T Vrana,

I know we've seen similar reactions, but those aren't the only highly emotional times for Snape. We know he was highly emotional in the hospital wing over Sirius' escape. We know he was highly emotional when Hagrid overheard the conversation in the forest which almost certainly had nothing to do with the James.

Yes, Snape gets very emotional over James, but that's not his only source of emotion.

He was showing hatred and revulsion on the tower. It almost certainly was worded that way to mirror Harry's emotions earlier that night. That means he cared for DD similarly to Harry. And that means a lot of that high emotion was for what happened on the tower. It's not just all about James.

I feel like we're messaging almost. Maybe we should wait a bit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 6:54 am (#541 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 8:15 am

While we know he had a heated argument with DD, we are not give the similar description of demented, inhuman etc. The escape of Sirius is part of the James trap. Snape thought Sirius was the secret keeper. Getting him would have helped satisfy Snape's debt, I would think.

I am not saying Snape doesn't show emotions at other times, but this level of emotion is reserved for James, as far as we've seen. A coincidence?

post-Snapes Worst Memory (James, again)

“It was scary: Snape's lips were shaking, his face was white, his teeth were bared."

Another inhuman, dog-like description, all based around James.

Not messaging...anyone can jump in!

EDIT- I think we need to remember Jo is writing, not reporting. When she uses a nearly identical reaction over 5 years’ time, ONLY when James is involved, I think we have to take notice.

Snape and Sirius get into a heated argument and the most Snape does is 'flush', even when wands are drawn.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 29, 2006 8:11 am (#542 of 1629)

EDIT- I think we need to remember Jo is writing, not reporting. When she uses a nearly identical reaction over 5 years time, ONLY when James is involved, I think we have to take notice.

I agree. But wouldn't the same apply when she uses almost identical reaction descriptors in the narration describing Harry's reaction to giving DD the cave liquids, and Snape AKing DD? Then shouldn't we conclude that they are both experiencing the same emotions for more or less the same reasons?

Still, I don't entirely disagree with you. I think being called a "coward" gets to Snape for a reason and yes, I do think it has to do with the past. I think I'll take this one up on the Snape thread, though.

As far as this thread goes -- my conclusion is that Snape is very distressed at what he has done on the tower, in a similar way that Harry was distressed in the cave. Snape, therefore, has very similar feelings toward DD as Harry. So regardless of what one thinks of his behavior fleeing Hogwarts, I do think he cared a lot for DD and I think his reactions while leaving were bound up in what happened on the tower. But that doesn't mean that is all that is driving his emotions. I think there's probably a lot of history, too.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 8:24 am (#543 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 9:25 am

I agree with the emotion on the tower, but could it be for what he appears to be doing, and what the WW will think? Anyone seeing Harry force feed DD potion would have thought he was killing him. Harry hated doing it. Anyone seeing the AK would think Snape killed DD, and now Snape is on the run, the second most hated wizard in the WW.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 29, 2006 8:42 am (#544 of 1629)

I think if JKR wanted to draw a parallel, then it would be for the what Harry and Snape felt. Harry felt hatred for himself and was repulsed by what he was doing. But he felt hatred for himself because he was doing this to DD. If Snape is mirroring Harry, then his hatred is for himself because of what he's doing to DD. That's important.

It could be evidence that Snape was actually killing DD, but I don't think that's necessary, since Harry wasn't killing DD (he'd been assured by DD that the liquids wouldn't kill him). So actually what we could be seeing is Snape feeling the exact thing Harry did for the same reasons -- this is a terrible thing to be doing to DD, but DD demanded it and said it wouldn't kill him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 8:56 am (#545 of 1629)

Good thoughts. I can't disagree but I think there is another possible explanation to the parallel.

Harry and Snape are different. While Harry would hate himself for what he was doing, because of who he is, Snape seems more likely to hate others for what he has to do. Even though it was he who took the vow, I can see him twisting it around that he only had to take the Vow because he was working for DD.

So for Harry, it appears he's killing DD and he hates what he is doing to DD. For Snape, it appears he's killing DD and he hates what this will do to him (perhaps the reason for the argument in the forest). Those Slytherins, always looking out for themselves.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 29, 2006 9:46 am (#546 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 11:09 am

I see your point, but it isn't about suffering, that is part of the whole epic hero bit, its about the line a good guy can't cross. (T Vrana)

I know, but my point - and I know you get it, you just don't agree (wink) - was that, as it is canon that a) Jo loves having her good guys suffer and b) she has stressed "doing the right thing, not the easy thing," then it would be logical (fair, not inconsistent, staying within the rules *she* established for *her* stories - regardless of what any other author does, etc) for her to have her good guys have to suffer the emotional pain of being required to hurt or even kill another good guy - physically or otherwise - in the interest of the common good or the greater good (or if it relieves the good guy he/she is going to hurt or kill from prolonged agony).

That's what I meant by "She likes to make her good guys suffer. And forcing them to do things - for the greater good or as an act of self-sacrifice to either another human being or to all of wizardkind - which they would find repulsive and would haunt them for the rest of their lives would not, in my opinion, be a big disconnect with that which I have seen in her books so far." It wasn't just about the suffering. It was about Jo maybe choosing to employ this possibly-unconventional, un-genre-like new way of causing them pain (ie - making them harm a friend), and it being ok for her to do so.

Having Hagrid or Lupin or Snape (if he is good) or Harry have to zap McGonagall - just to use a way-out example - if she is standing right in front of Voldemort in order to get to Voldemort is simply a continuation of what Jo has been doing and saying all along. DD's speech to the school after Cedric's death applied to far more than just Cedric Diggory. (I am not saying anything like this *will* be necessary in Book Seven and I certainly hope it won't!!)

Well, that's how I see it anyway. Nobody else has to, of course. (grin)

Laura

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 29, 2006 10:08 am (#547 of 1629)

Laura,

I think we probably all basically understand one another on this. I think what you're describing can indeed make a good story. I just think the JKR has set a pattern that seems to include certain parameters (regardless whether those parameters are for epic hero reasons or just her own parameters), and I think one person on the good side, killing another on the good side, is outside of those parameters.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Laura W - Oct 29, 2006 10:15 am (#548 of 1629)
Edited Oct 29, 2006 11:18 am

And for the reasons I gave in my last post, and my previous posts on this topic from #509 on, I think they are within *her* parameters - which may not be average for the genre.

I do appreciate the civility and clarity of your reply to my last message, wynnleaf. Thanks for that.

Now, on with the most interesting and multi-faceted discussion of "Dumbledore's Death (insert eerie music here) - What Really Happened?" ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Annie Infante - Oct 29, 2006 11:37 am (#549 of 1629)

As I understand it everyone seems to fall into one of two camps. DD was killed by Snape according to some sort of a prearranged plan and Snape is not truly evil, but somewhat grey, or DD was murdered by Snape and is truly evil. Did I get that straight or is there yet another major scenario that I have missed? As for how Snape acts/reacts on his flight from the tower, I'd like to point out just one thing. Is it possible that when Snape looks at Harry he still partially sees James? Snape seems to carry a lot of suppressed feelings about James and that could be why in times of extreme stress-usually brought on by Harry-we see his almost inhuman reactions. His jeering at Harry seems like he is almost punishing Harry because he is James' son. Also he seems to get most upset by being called a coward not by being told to kill again. This still doesn't seem to say exactly what I want it to but oh well...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 29, 2006 12:40 pm (#550 of 1629)

Hi, Annie-

There's also the "Snape didn't murder DD but was participating in a pre-arranged plan to appear to do so."

I would agree Snape punishes Harry just because he is James' son, made all that much easier because he looks just like him.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 551 to 575

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 18, 2011 8:43 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weeny Owl - Oct 29, 2006 9:36 pm (#551 of 1629)

There's also the "Snape realized that Dumbledore was either already dead or was going to die from the potion he drank in the cave, and in order to save him from becoming an Inferius, an Avada Kedavra was the only choice."

No one seems to like my theory, but with all the Inferi in the cave and him drinking a potion, it's something that I just can't forget. There was enough talk about them during the book, and the horror on anyone's face coming upon a Dumbledore Inferius just leaps out at me.

Dumbledore wanted Snape for a reason, and even if the reason isn't my pet theory, then I still like the one about Dumbledore already being dead or nearly so in Hogsmeade, so that by the time Snape showed up, Dumbledore could quit hanging on and let go. That's what Dumbledore's "Please, Severus" was about.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Die Zimtzicke - Oct 30, 2006 11:40 am (#552 of 1629)

Regarding this comment: "Sort of like ending a great classical piece of music with a heavy metal guitar solo. It can be done, but why do it?"

Wasn't anyone else here alive the first time Bob Dylan tried to do a concert with an electric guitar? Didn't work well, but man, did it get attenion!

Annie Infante: I think you have a fair resume of the situation, as that's pretty much how I see it, but I concede I'm getting completely mixed up.

I totally agree with Weeny Owl, too. That theory is something to consider, and it's getting short shrift.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 30, 2006 12:38 pm (#553 of 1629)

Weeny Owl,

I've got a couple of difficulties with that theory, which you're welcome to show how to work them out.

1. If that's the plot JKR worked out, how would there be any way for the knowledge of what really happened to be known? It wouldn't have occurred due to a plan that one could find in someone's pensieve memory, or that a portrait could reveal. It would be a spur of the moment decision between DD and Snape. There's be no way the extenuating circumstances could come to light. Sure, Harry might eventually discover the cave liquids turned people into inferi, but that doesn't give any indication that Snape knew it.

2. It doesn't address several of the inconsistencies of the events. Why DD would be so weak in Hogsmeade, yet able to out fly Harry to the tower, even while removing the charms around the tower with (apparently) wandless magic? Why DD would have been unable to retrieve his wand? Why DD would ever tell Draco that Draco was at his mercy, when he was about to die and become an inferi? And why Harry's being frozen did not cease at the moment of DD's death under the AK, but several seconds later as the DE's and Draco were leaving the tower?

Die

Wasn't anyone else here alive the first time Bob Dylan tried to do a concert with an electric guitar? Didn't work well, but man, did it get attention!


Yep, got a DVD on that. Big Dylan fan here!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 31, 2006 12:21 am (#554 of 1629)

wynnleaf --And why Harry's being frozen did not cease at the moment of DD's death under the AK, but several seconds later as the DE's and Draco were leaving the tower?

I think the charm did cease at the moment of Dumbledore's death but it just seems longer as you read it. It seems like it takes forever for Dumbledore to fall off the tower, just like it seemed to take forever for Sirius to fall through the veil, but in actuality it would've taken all of about a second. You also have to consider the fact that Harry is most likely in shock for a moment after seeing DD AKed and doesn't realize the spell ended when the AK hit:

‘ Harry felt as though he too were hurtling through space; it had not happened.... It could not have happened....

“Out of here, quickly,” said Snape.

He seized Malfoy by the scruff of the neck and forced him through the door ahead of the rest; Greyback and the squat brother and sister followed, the latter both panting excitedly. As they vanished through the door, Harry realized he could move again. What was now holding him paralyzed against the wall was not magic, but horror and shock. He threw the Invisibility Cloak aside as the brutal-faced Death Eater, last to leave the tower top, was disappearing through the door.’

(HBP28, 597, US; underline and bold mine)
Archivist’s note: the original bold and underline used by S.E. Jones did not transfer in the archiving process. So the underline here was my best guess as to what S.E. Jones intended. Lady Arabella

So, the spell had worn off when DD was hit, but Harry couldn't move out of shock for a few seconds until the last DE was leaving.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

shadzar - Oct 31, 2006 12:37 am (#555 of 1629)

And why Harry's being frozen did not cease at the moment of DD's death under the AK, but several seconds later as the DE's and Draco were leaving the tower?

I think that is a major problem. When you consider Snape leaving seemed to be the time Harry was released then it was almost likely the time for DD to fall. If the bind on Harry left at the instance of death this would mean that DD died from the fall not the "AK". Figuring it takes Snape 3 seconds to grab Malfoy, tell him its time to leave, and exit down the stairway; takes DD to fall:

# a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds
# the terminal velocity of a skydiver in a normal free-fall position with a closed parachute is about 195 km/h (120 mph or 54 m/s)
# 5m ceiling height of castles
# 1 meter = 3.28 feet

DD would have travelled roughly 153.5 feet, 10 stories if Hogwarts was around that ceiling height.

So if the bind was lifted only after Snape left then it means the fall killed DD not the alleged AK.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 31, 2006 12:41 am (#556 of 1629)

Shadzar, I don't think we have any reason to think the bind was lifted when Dumbledore hit the ground rather than when the AK hit him. (see my post above)

Harry is in shock when the DEs start to run for the door. JKR says as much, that it's the shock that's holding him, not he spell. So, he doesn't react. We aren't told "this is when the spell wore off" we're told "then Harry realized...", the "realized" meaning that he's just becoming aware of it because he was distracted by watching his mentor and protector just get AKed by an Order member.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 31, 2006 12:50 am (#557 of 1629)

”As they vanished through the door, Harry realized he could move again.”

Still provides for the fall to have done the deed. It is in those 3 seconds that we don't know about which lets us speculate. I would think it is made to look like either option so we won't know until Snape is resolved as good or evil as to whether it was an AK or the fall that killed DD.

I read it as that way. The reason that Harry didn't follow Snape for another few seconds was the shock holding him still from what he had seen. This gave Snape enough time to escape. Though he didn't need it in the end, he easily knocked Harry on his butt and walked back toward him from the gate to mock him. But it gives time for Snape to get Draco out and away from the DE and Order. That is where I see his fear playing into it holding him there. But the actual killing stroke is still ambiguous because we don't know about those 2-3 seconds from when DD started to fall and Snape/Draco leaving if Harry could even move with a fear reflex. It seems his first reflex was after Snape left and because he noticed his body reacting to a stimuli and moving on its own that is when the bind finally wore off.

(or it could be too cold/early in the morning for me to be thinking. =P )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 31, 2006 1:02 am (#558 of 1629)

The fact that the line "Harry realized he could move again" is followed by "What was now holding him paralyzed against the wall was not magic, but horror and shock" tends to make me think that the spell did indeed end when the AK hit and his "realization" is that what he's feeling isn't the spell but the shock.

I think I see what you're saying, though. I'll just agree to disagree and go to bed (because it's 3am here!). Goodnight all.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 6:09 am (#559 of 1629)

I think when the spell was removed is intentionally ambiguous. How long was it 'shock and horror' before Harry realized he could move? Several people had already gone through the door, Snape, Malfoy, Alecto, Amyscus, Fenrir. Getting to the door, opening the door, waiting turns to get out and descend. Several seconds.

Holding out a little hope that the spell was lifted when DD lost consciousness

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Annie Infante - Oct 31, 2006 6:54 am (#560 of 1629)

Some time ago during the discussion about whether or not Snape and DD have a plan and whether or not Snape is on DD's side, a thought was on the edge of my brain and I think I've captured it. One thing that seems to point against Snape being on DD's side is the conversation between DD and Malfoy (pg 588)when Malfoy asks DD why he didn't try to stop him DD says, "I tried, Draco. Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you on my orders--" "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother--" "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but--" and so on. The thing that catches me is why would DD say that bit about "Of course that is what he would tell you" if he indeed KNEW about the vow? If DD knew that the vow was indeed performed why would he try to cast doubt that Snape was doing the protecting for Malfoy's Mum. The way I hear the dialogue in my head as I read it makes it sound as if DD didn't know about the vow. Does anyone get what I mean?

As for the enchantment lifting, I agree that it was definitely shock holding Harry still after DD dies. Shock absolutely does that to a person.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 7:13 am (#561 of 1629)

Annie- You are right about this comment seeming to indicate that DD didn't know about the vow. It is the one thing DD says on the tower that concerns me. But once again Jo leaves room for doubt.

“Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but—“

But what?

..but, I know about the vow, I am not concerned, Prof. Snape is working for me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 31, 2006 7:23 am (#562 of 1629)

Annie Infante,

Yes, I see what you mean. But I had understood what DD said a bit differently -- and I suppose it does all depend on how you read it. DD is telling Draco that Snape has been watching over him on DD's orders. Draco counters that Snape is doing it because of the Vow. DD then says that "of course, that is what he would tell you." I think what DD is saying is that the real reason Snape is watching over Draco is because DD wanted him to (and Snape would probably do it anyway).

My feeling about the Vow in Spinners End is that Snape got into it because the focus was on protecting Draco which he was going to be doing anyway, so it was no harm done to make a Vow about it. It was only the 3rd criteria (to complete Draco's mission), that was the glitch. But if that's the case, then DD's statement makes sense. Snape was watching over Draco anyway, and the Vow was not the real reason.

On Harry regaining his movement...

Once again, JKR is ambiguous. She is not just describing some event that she saw occur, she's making it up and deciding what to tell us, and how to describe it. This isn't accidental. If she's ambiguous repeatedly it's for a reason.

Still, I think it stretches credulity to think that someone watching a murder would continue to stay stock still while five people in turn leave the tower, before he suddenly realized he could move. And what about voice? His silent scream would -- should -- have become audible the moment that AK hit, right? Remember, he was screaming silently while the AK hit. That scream should have been voiced immediately if that AK really killed DD, or if DD died in that instant from anything else.

A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as Dumbledore was blasted into the air.

The scream would have been an involuntary reaction. He wouldn't have to remember, or discover, that he could move again. That scream should have left him if DD was dead at that moment. Therefore DD wasn't dead -- at least not yet. Just my opinion, of course.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Annie Infante - Oct 31, 2006 7:39 am (#563 of 1629)

Wynnleaf, sometimes a scream remains silent for a good while before actually leaving, for some people.

The thoughts on the vow you had are very thought provoking. I remember how he seems to take the first two portions of the vow easily but his hand does twitch on the third bit. I've always thought that appears to show reluctance.

I also would like to know what DD would have said after "but". T Vrana, you have a really good ending for that sentence. I really do want Snape to be good. It may be too late for DD, as I don't see how he can be anything but, really. However, Snape can be redeemed as mentioned by many others and I can see Jo making him (and especially Draco) better people by the end of the books.

I really have to teach my kids now, but look forward to reading further posts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 7:53 am (#564 of 1629)

Wynnleaf- Very good point about the scream. AK death is instantaneous, as far as we know, but I doubt the scream would have been, or even could have been, that short.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Oct 31, 2006 8:25 am (#565 of 1629)

”Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but—“

I find that unsettling as well. It does seem like Dumbledore doesn't know about the vow. On the other hand,the argument that Hagrid overheard "Dumbledore told him flat out that he agreed ter do it and tha' was all there was to it" seems to me like Dumbledore was aware of the vow Snape made.

Dumbledore admitting to Draco that Snape is following his orders and saying "I trust Professor Snape--" seems a bit odd to me, almost as if Dumbledore had to say it outloud to reassure himself. Why does Dumbledore need to insist to Draco that Snape is on his side? Does that not put Snape in jeopardy had Dumbledore survived?

I think the tower scene is the most ambiguous event that I have ever read. (Go,Jo!)

Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as Dumbledore was blasted into the air.

It could be that Harry was so horrified that he was unable to make a sound.I recall night terrors where you are so scared that you cannot scream.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 31, 2006 8:52 am (#566 of 1629)

I never thought the conversation that Hagrid overheard was about the vow.

I thought it was about Snape being a double agent.

I've been wrong before though!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 31, 2006 9:00 am (#567 of 1629)

It could be that Harry was so horrified that he was unable to make a sound. I recall night terrors where you are so scared that you cannot scream.

Yes, that's more or less what Annie was saying, too. But while the text does not explicitly say that Harry's scream couldn't be heard because of the spell, the very strong implication to the reader is that the reason Harry's scream is silent is because he cannot move.

We see Harry described as "silent and unmoving" in the last of paragraph, then immediately at the start of the next chapter, Harry is described as seeing the DE's leaving the tower and then coming to a realization that he can move. A good deal of the focus of the narration is on the fact that Harry couldn't move and then after the DE's and Draco leave, he discovers he can.

The narration about the silent scream strongly implies that the scream was silent because Harry couldn't move.

That leaves us with three basic options.

1. JKR made a mistake and described Harry as being unable to move when DD was actually dead and Harry should have been able to move. JKR forgot that spells end when the person making the spell dies.

2. JKR intended Harry's silence to be a natural silent scream, but wanted to trick the reader into believing the scream was silent because of DD's spell. In reality, the scream was silent naturally because the spell had already ended, but JKR didn't want us to know the spell had ended... What??? why wouldn't she want us to know? If DD's dead, why would she want us to think maybe he wasn't? No, no, that doesn't work. Which leaves us..

Option 3. The scream was silent because the spell was still in place and Harry really couldn't move. The spell was still in place because DD wasn't dead.

Why does Dumbledore need to insist to Draco that Snape is on his side? Does that not put Snape in jeopardy had Dumbledore survived?

Madame Pomfrey, I think at that point DD was making a concerted effort to get Draco to turn away from LV and seek DD's protection. Remember how he tells Draco that Draco is at his mercy, not DD at Draco's mercy. And he talks about hiding Draco, etc. This in itself sounds like a flat out lie or major delusion if DD knows that he's in the process of dying, because there's no way, if he's really dying and too weak to help himself, that he can possibly help Draco. Still, assuming DD really can't personally help Draco, then the only person who can help Draco in DD's stead is Snape. So Draco would have to accept that Snape was on the good side in order to received help from Dumbledore.

As matters stand at the end of HBP, if Snape is truly on the good side, Draco wouldn't know it unless Snape wanted to reveal it to him. The AK on the tower would certainly make Draco think that Dumbledore was mistaken about Snape.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 9:01 am (#568 of 1629)

HAYMONI- I agree. Saying he doesn't want to do the vow anymore would make Snape sound silly. But not wanting to follow Malfoy, follow a plan with DD, or spy, fits.

Though leaving LV seems to be hazardous to one's health.

Can't be following Malfoy, he's already doing that becasue of the vow.

Think it’s a plan...maybe!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mrs Brisbee - Oct 31, 2006 9:23 am (#569 of 1629)

1. JKR made a mistake and described Harry as being unable to move when DD was actually dead and Harry should have been able to move. JKR forgot that spells end when the person making the spell dies.

2. JKR intended Harry's silence to be a natural silent scream, but wanted to trick the reader into believing the scream was silent because of DD's spell. In reality, the scream was silent naturally because the spell had already ended, but JKR didn't want us to know the spell had ended... What??? why wouldn't she want us to know? If DD's dead, why would she want us to think maybe he wasn't? No, no, that doesn't work. Which leaves us..

Option 3. The scream was silent because the spell was still in place and Harry really couldn't move. The spell was still in place because DD wasn't dead.


Option 4: The scream was silent because the spell's magic still needed to fade out, a process that takes place rapidly over a period of one or two seconds.

I'm not sure where the idea that a wizard's death must mean that all his spells cut out instantaneously with no transition comes from. Was there another death in the series where Rowling established that, and I'm just not remembering it? We have seen magic fade slowly (Fred and George's items), and we've seen magic last beyond the caster's death (Permanent Sticking Charms), we've seen it end abruptly (I'm assuming anyway. I can't think of anything specific but I'm sure a few minutes of perusing would find something in the books), and now we have a quick fade. Works for me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thom Matheson - Oct 31, 2006 9:25 am (#570 of 1629)

If they all ceased with the caster, would that also possible apply to the enchantments DD put on Hogwarts? Not likely, but the thought just came to mind.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 9:29 am (#571 of 1629)

We know some spells 'fade'. The leg locker curse on Snape, cast by one of the Marauders wore off while James and Lily were 'talking'. But the only times we've seen the Full Body Bind lift, I think, was in the MoM, when one DE released another, and when Harry was released from Malfoy's on the train (by Tonks). I think in the MoM and on the train it was instantaneous. I don't think the full body bind is a fader.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 31, 2006 9:43 am (#572 of 1629)

I can't recall where we got the info that a spell ends when the caster dies. I think it's in the books, not a JKR quote.

I know it doesn't apply to everything because JKR specifically told us it doesn't apply to the fidelius charm, and there's the "permenant" sticking charm. So there are certainly spells that go beyond death. I think the info we got somewhere was that in general spells end if the caster dies. But I can't recall where it is.

Can anyone remember??? I'm searching for it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 31, 2006 10:03 am (#573 of 1629)

There was a mention of Imperious Curses ending-- or at least people coming out of a fog-- when Voldemort died. I can't remember which book either, though, but I think it was an early one. It doesn't say the curse ened like a light bulb blowing. The magic could have just as easily done a quick fade out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Annie Infante - Oct 31, 2006 10:08 am (#574 of 1629)

Wynnleaf, good question, why would DD offer to protect Draco if he knew he was dying from potion. If Draco had said, "Ok help me" would DD have hidden him before Snape and the DEs got to the tower? It would have had to have happened that way because they couldn't have witnesses could they? Then at some point it would be revealed (maybe) that Snape was really a good guy.DD obviously wanted Draco to ask for help, but Draco didn't go for it in time so then Snape had to kill him as the backup plan to save Draco from committing a horrible act. DD would rather have Snape do it than Draco.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 10:19 am (#575 of 1629)

Poor Snape! Imagine DD telling him it’s okay for him to tear his soul to save the ingrate Draco!

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Posts 576 to 600

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 18, 2011 8:44 pm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weeny Owl - Oct 31, 2006 11:28 am (#576 of 1629)

Sure, Harry might eventually discover the cave liquids turned people into inferi, but that doesn't give any indication that Snape knew it.

Snape wouldn't have had to have known, though. All he would have to do would be to know the symptoms of a quickly approaching death. Perhaps he could recognize specific things that a potion could do. Since he's so good at potions already, it would stand to reason that he would be able to recognize when someone has been poisoned by one.

Why DD would be so weak in Hogsmeade, yet able to out fly Harry to the tower, even while removing the charms around the tower with (apparently) wandless magic.

Adrenalin.

Why DD would have been unable to retrieve his wand.

We don't know that he wasn't able to retrieve it, nor do we know that he could. Granted he's powerful, and wizards can do magic without their wands, but we don't know how far that works. It could be five feet, ten feet, fifty feet, but we don't know that either way.

Why DD would ever tell Draco that Draco was at his mercy, when he was about to die and become an inferi.

It wasn't that Dumbledore was about to become an Inferius. It's that the potion allows someone to become one, perhaps after a spell is performed. The potion would kill Dumbledore, and he would have lain in the cave until someone came along to revive him, but he would be revived as an Inferius only.

And why Harry's being frozen did not cease at the moment of DD's death under the AK, but several seconds later as the DE's and Draco were leaving the tower.

We don't know that it didn't cease at the moment of Dumbledore's death. Harry could have stood frozen in horror for a minute or two before trying to move.

Even if the whole Inferius theory isn't right, I still think Dumbledore died in the cave and was revived by the lake water, and that was why he so desperately wanted Snape. I also think that he either completely died right before Snape cast the Avada Kedavra, or that Snape knew that whatever was going on with Dumbledore was fatal, and that by casting the curse, he could continue to work for the Order.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 11:54 am (#577 of 1629)

Weeny Owl

I'm not sure I understand your theory completely. The 'traps' inside the cave seemed to work in steps.

1) You must drink the potion to get the horcrux.

2) The potion does something nasty to stop you from drinking.

3) If you do succeed in drinking, you become thirsty, but only lake water can be consumed.

4) When you touch the lake water, the inferi try to pull you into the lake.

You think the lake water revived the 'dead' DD. Why would LV want it do that?

We know DD did not drink the lake water, Harry spilled some on his face. So at best, a few drops may have entered his mouth. Had he consumed the lake water, as intended, what do you think would have happened to him?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 31, 2006 12:15 pm (#578 of 1629)

Why DD would ever tell Draco that Draco was at his mercy, when he was about to die and become an inferi.

It wasn't that Dumbledore was about to become an Inferius. It's that the potion allows someone to become one, perhaps after a spell is performed. The potion would kill Dumbledore, and he would have lain in the cave until someone came along to revive him, but he would be revived as an Inferius only.


I don't think this actually answers my question, other than that DD wouldn't necessarily become an inferius right off. If he knew he was about to die, what could he realistically offer Draco? How was Draco at his mercy?

As regards the timing of Harry's becoming unfrozen, I'm still trying to find out how we learned that most spells end when the person dies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 1:30 pm (#579 of 1629)

On the train Harry describes the lifting of the spell as being unfrozen, allowing him to hurriedly get into a more dignified position. Sounds like an on/off switch more than a fade.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Annie Infante - Oct 31, 2006 1:31 pm (#580 of 1629)

It doesn't seem like the cave liquid would turn someone into an inferi. DD says it won't kill him because VM would want whoever got that far to live to tell about how it was done. Being an inferius does mean being dead/killed first doesn't it? Seems like the liquid was just meant to incapacitate the wizard, leaving him able to talk to VM. Maybe, however the eventual effect of the potion was death, hence DD's urgency to get Snape for the antidote. Of course, these theories hinge on whether or not VM could even be aware that someone had penetrated the cave's defenses. How long could a wizard who drank the potion stay alive to allow VM to question him. Yet, DD's opinion is stated that VM would want to talk to the wizard. He also says something about how VM would assume the wizard was working solo.

Looks like we all have some "homework" trying to figure out when spells end! The people under the imperius curse come out of it like a fog....implies that it wears off. Some curses in the MOM fight scene have to be removed by someone else. And some don't really say one way or the other. When is book 7 supposed to be out??? We have to wait how long???

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 31, 2006 1:48 pm (#581 of 1629)

Good point with the scream. That is the line I was looking for on the previous page but couldn't find it. If the scream was a reflex reaction to an AK, it was not the first time Harry had seen it, and when it happened to Cedric he was taken by pain from his scar and wretched in pain. Fight or Flight responses are stronger than can be humanly controlled sometimes and likely what the scream was on the tower. He wanted to scream and react to help DD if he could, but the spell from DD was still in place after the AK had hit DD.

"The thing that catches me is why would DD say that bit about "Of course that is what he would tell you" if he indeed KNEW about the vow?"

Well if he knew the vow Snape made was no good. I strongly think that if he made a vow to DD then it would precede the one made with Narcissa. Even if it was a normal vow like maybe one must take when becoming a teacher at Hogwarts. A code of rules to follow. Possibly the same was in effect with Quirrel, but LV possessing him didn't allow for us to see any response from a vow of duty to the school; and Moody/Crouch Jr. never took any such vow because he got to Moody after he was accepted/asked to teach.

So DD was probably relying on some such vow of duty from Snape to overrule a vow that conflicted with it… or the thing in the woods could have been something to remove the vow, or protect Snape from the one made with Narcissa.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Oct 31, 2006 1:53 pm (#582 of 1629)

What if the lake water was DOLD? Harry splashed it on Dumbledore - maybe that was enough to slow him down a bit.

I suppose it would make sense if all the Inferi were floating around in it - sort of like embalming fluid for dead people.

Ugh - I just hate this whole topic. I don't know why I get into discussions about Inferi. They just disgust me to no end.

Not like Fenrir, though - he's evil disgusting.

Inferi are just gross disgusting.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Annie Infante - Oct 31, 2006 1:54 pm (#583 of 1629)

Shadzar, why do you think Snapes hand twitches when he has to make the third part of the vow?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 1:59 pm (#584 of 1629)

haymoni-

I do think the lake water was Draught of Living Death (DOLD). It fits perfectly with LV wanting to retain, but question the intruder, and if a few drop did get into DD's mouth, it explains all the nodding off, looking tired and sleepy comments.

I also think RAB may be in the lake clutching the horcrux under the effects of DOLD.

shadzar- DD doesn't strike me as the kind of wizard who forces vows. Its all about trust and choices. He asks Harry for his word, he doesn't make him take a vow.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 31, 2006 2:02 pm (#585 of 1629)

T Vrana -- But the only times we've seen the Full Body Bind lift, I think, was in the MoM, when one DE released another, and when Harry was released from Malfoy's on the train (by Tonks). I think in the MoM and on the train it was instantaneous.—

Although these spells lift instantaneously (like an on/off switch as you put it), they are being lifted by another wizard, not lifting on their own, so it wouldn't be the same as a curse lifting because the caster was dead. The way I see it, a spell like the Imperius or the full Body-Bind are spells that are powered by the will of the wizard who casts them, while the Fidelius and the Permanent Sticking charm are powered by the magic itself. We don't have any previous examples that I can think of for a spell lifting instantaneously when the caster dies. What we do have is this line: He had known there was no hope from the moment that the full Body-Bind Curse Dumbledore had placed upon him lifted, known that it could have happened only because its caster was dead... (HBP28, p608, US). I could see it taking a second for the spell to break after DD dying. I still tend to lean toward it being shock though. Yes, his scream is never heard and the scream is an automatic response, but so is shock, and shock can be strong enough to override the Fight or Flight defense. I'm speaking both from personal experience and from my knowledge of physiology and psychology.

If the lake water was Draught of Living Death, how did Voldemort absolutely know someone would drink it? If he assumed the person was alone, the person might be so badly off that they aren't able to do so. Harry had to force Dumbledore to drink, but Dumbledore never tried to get to the lake on his own accord. He was so out of it that he might have just curled up there and the potion would've kept affecting him. When he'd finished the potion, although he begged for water, he was too weak and out of it to attempt to get the water himself. It seems to me that Voldemort wouldn't have been able to count on the person drinking the lake water and thus the person would've been just as likely to die (either from the potion or from starvation) than they were to drink the water and be pulled in by the Inferi.

As for forcing a vow, I agree that Dumbledore wouldn't. However, we also know that Dumbledore made it very clear to Harry that Harry had promised him something and he would stick to that promise, no matter what. That's the way I took the argument in the forest, Snape had promised Dumbledore to do something and didn't want to, but Dumbledore was reminding him of the promise as he did Harry, which is exactly what Hagrid said he overheard. Now, what that promise was is certainly the question, isn't it? I tend to think that it had something to do with ignoring the Vow and follow some plan that Dumbledore had set forth. Since the vow could affect Snape's life, he's unhappy with keeping his mouth shut and following along because he thinks Dumbledore's depending on too many unknown variables. I also think that's why Snape seems so calm outwardly, despite the fact he took the vow, because he knows it Dumbledore's plan.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


shadzar - Oct 31, 2006 2:04 pm (#586 of 1629)

Annie, quiet possibly there is a problem with the spell. I have been trying to go over it but, even from my D&D gaming experience, I can find no clues to resolve the issue in the books. It would seem the spell should "fizzle" and fail when a Conflict of interest is present, but maybe there is something else we are missing about the vow that Narcissa and Snape were hiding from...Bella? Cissy?..whomever. Snape is good at reading thoughts. My only thought on the spell is one where it concerns the spell.
# Do the conditions have to be spoken aloud?
# Can the participants agree upon it silently.

Narcissa is a Black originally and not a Muggle, else Draco wouldn't be "pure-blood" and we don't know what she can do. Maybe she and Snape were conversing silently right in front of the DE and she didn't even realize it?

That is the only little bit I can come up with without knowing the entire mechanics of the vow.

TVrana: Not that DD forced a vow on any teacher at Hogwarts, but it is one of those protections that DD had in place, or even one older than DD on the school itself. Like a code of chivalry, but magically binding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 2:45 pm (#587 of 1629)

SE- After being splashed with the water, DD is on his feet, so I think it quite possible that if DD had been alone and had managed to drink the potion, he could have dragged himself to the edge of the island for a drink. If a splash on the face got him on his feet, surely he could have managed to get over to edge.

I think it likely that while DD felt terrible, and was very thirsty, and would have liked a drink and a small rest, the inferi dragging Harry toward the lake acted as the stimulant he needed to get going again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Annie Infante - Oct 31, 2006 3:42 pm (#588 of 1629)

Yikes....RAB an inferius in the lake clutching the locket....creepy! That is probably being discussed at length on the RAB thread.

Could all the water in the lake be a potion? What the potion is that DD actually drinks is really important to what ultimately happens on the tower because it is a variable that I don't think DD could have seen coming. Therefore, it stands to reason that plan or no plan with Severus, DD had had to do some quick thinking on the tower.

I wish I could hear JK read that chapter. Voice inflection could make it so much easier to understand. Like in what way did DD say "Please, Severus"? If DD wasn't careful his tone of voice and demeanor could have potentially given away the "fact" that he and Severus had a plan. Same goes for the passage between DD and Malfoy that I mentioned earlier; inflection makes a big difference.

Since VM would not have expected a wizard to have help with the potion in the basin the effect of the basin potion might be completely different when one only drinks a little bit of it vs. the effect when it's being force fed to the wizard. How did RAB do that? This should go up there with the other paragraph! Oh well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Oct 31, 2006 6:24 pm (#589 of 1629)

On Jo as a children's author...from her site...

“I have said many times, if I remain a children's author forever (which I may well do), I will never see this as being a lesser, easier or less 'serious' career than writing for adults.”

From the garbage bin rumor that Jo gets riled when called a children's author.

Where did we ever get the idea, which led to much debate, that Jo said she was not a children's author?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


S.E. Jones - Oct 31, 2006 6:53 pm (#590 of 1629)
Edited Oct 31, 2006 7:40 pm

Probably from various interviews where she's said that she never intended to be a children's author but just writes what she'd want to read herself.

I also think much of it was fueled by people who, like me, grew up being forced to read things in school which could easily ruin anyone's love of literature. My teachers, the ones who forced me to read that awful stuff anyway, weren't big into the whole classical literature thing, but "modern" children's literature, which is overly simplistic, dull, and tedious, in my opinion. I really think that has colored my perception of what is and isn't "children's literature". It would seem some of the members who posted on the "Genre" thread had similar experiences. Personally, I grew up reading stuff that I always simply classified as "literature" (neither "children's" or "adult's") - The Secret Garden, Aesop's Fables, The Last Unicorn, etc. - which I consider literature purely because it is 1) a good story in the most classical sense of the word and 2) because it can be enjoyed by both children and adults alike. They are not written in such a way as to suggest they can only be enjoyed by one group or the other, which is something I tend to hold against the labels of "adult" and "children's" literature.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Oct 31, 2006 7:32 pm (#591 of 1629)

In her interviews, JKR has made it rather clear that a lot of what she likes to read is children's literature.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Weeny Owl - Oct 31, 2006 11:11 pm (#592 of 1629)

As I said, my theory may be a bunch of hogwash, but something happened with the potion and the lake water that hasn't been explained.

The lake water DID revive Dumbledore, even though it appeared that it was just splashed on him, although he could have drunk some of it.

Draught of Living Death or not, that lake water isn't just ordinary lake water.

Even if the whole Inferius thing doesn't pan out, I still think that whatever happened in that cave basically signed Dumbledore's death warrant and that Snape isn't guilty of murder.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 5:11 am (#593 of 1629)

Weeny- I agree that something was up with the lake water. You may be right about the cave liquids killing DD, but I hope not. If DD was wrong and the cave liquids killed him, then Harry, not Snape, killed DD.

I hope neither of them killed DD...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


haymoni - Nov 1, 2006 5:45 am (#594 of 1629)

All I know is that I would have to be awfully, awfully thirsty to drink something from a lake that contained dead bodies.

I wonder if Harry had known how to conjure up a different cup - would the "Augamenti" (whatever) spell have worked?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


[Newton, Steve]Steve Newton - Nov 1, 2006 6:06 am (#595 of 1629)

All I know is that I would have to be awfully, awfully thirsty to drink something from a lake that contained dead bodies.

You bet!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Nov 1, 2006 7:41 am (#596 of 1629)

Weeny- I agree that something was up with the lake water. You may be right about the cave liquids killing DD, but I hope not. If DD was wrong and the cave liquids killed him, then Harry, not Snape, killed DD.

I agree that the cave liquids did something important, we just don't know what. Like T Vrana, I don't want to find out that Harry's action killed DD either. Harry's already had to deal with his offer to Cedric to jointly grasp the Triwizard Cup led him to his death, and his going to the MOM led Sirius to his death. Does the story also need Harry to discover that the liquids that he had to force-feed DD lead to his death as well? Sure, with all of those characters it was really LV or his evil intentions that did the deeds, but I don't know that the story needs another such instance as this for Harry.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Nov 1, 2006 7:50 am (#597 of 1629)

I really don't want to think that Snape killed Dumbledore and I really don't think Dumbledore died at the tower, Maybe afterward in Hagrid's care. I mean ,couldn't it be possible that Dumbledore,with the help of Snape, staged his death at that particular moment(knowing he didn't have much time anyway} to satisfy the vow and get Snape deeper in with Voldemort? Harry has not talked with Hagrid since before the funeral. Also,Hagrid didn't make eye contact with Harry during the funeral which I found odd. Yes, Hagrid was puffy eyed, but he has never not acknowledged Harry, to my knowledge, nor does he hide his feelings from him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 8:23 am (#598 of 1629)

On Hagrid, I agree, M Pomfrey, and originally put this as one of the clues that there was a plan. Hagrid has a habit of letting informaiton slip, and it seemed he was avoiding Harry, usually he would have sought him out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Madame Pomfrey - Nov 1, 2006 9:07 am (#599 of 1629)

Hmm..I wonder if Hagrid IS hiding something?

T, I really like the Draught of Living Death theory. In your theory when would Dumbledore be revived or when and how do you think he died? As for the RAB is in the cave water theory I am sold on that one.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Annie Infante - Nov 1, 2006 9:14 am (#600 of 1629)

One thing that seems very realistic to me is how in times of crisis Harry sometimes forgets to use common sense. Like in the cave; he has just finished force feeding DD and is trying to get him some water. The goblet keeps emptying before DD can drink so Harry is forced to go to the lake. But why didn't he just have the water come out of his wand like when he's putting out the fire of Hagrid's hut? Because that isn't how JK wrote it, which seems to lead to the idea that she wanted DD to drink the water from the lake. But then he doesn't really drink it. Maybe all that JK intended that to show was that to disturb the water was to wake up the creeps in it. Why are we so sure the water revived DD? It never actually says it does. One minute he's down, after the bit about the inferi attacking he's up.

To me all the grief shown by the characters, especially Hagrid, is too real to have been faked.


Last edited by Lady Arabella on Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2530
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  Empty Re: Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum