Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1226 to 1250

Post  Lady Arabella on Sun May 22, 2011 11:21 pm


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


Choices - Jan 18, 2007 8:34 pm (#1226 of 1629)

Perhaps Flitwick and the Patronus arrived about the same time and Snape stunned Flitwick to keep him from seeing the message. Just an odd thought....it's late.

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


T Vrana - Jan 18, 2007 9:53 pm (#1227 of 1629)

DD spent quite a long time talking to Malfoy and the DEs. If DD sent the Patronus when he arrived on the tower, would it have taken Snape that long to get there?

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


wynnleaf - Jan 18, 2007 10:03 pm (#1228 of 1629)

DD spent quite a long time talking to Malfoy and the DEs. If DD sent the Patronus when he arrived on the tower, would it have taken Snape that long to get there?

I was thinking the same thing and tend to agree this is an obstacle to the theory. However, in some of the other books, it appears to take as long as 10-15 minutes to get from one place in the castle to another (note, for instance, Harry and Hermione during the time-turner scenes in POA). And in this case, we're talking about a message getting down to the dungeons, and then Snape getting from the dungeons all the way up to the top of the Astronomy tower.

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


mona amon - Jan 19, 2007 3:12 am (#1229 of 1629)

But if DD had already sent a message to Snape when he arrived on the tower,why is he so insistent on sending Harry to fetch him?If he just wanted him out of the way,he could have told him to leave.After all Harry had sworn to obey him.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [


Soul Search - Jan 19, 2007 8:10 am (#1230 of 1629)

We have well analyzed the events leading up to Dumbledore's death on the tower. I submit the following as a reasonable summary.

Snape has reported to Dumbledore what he knows about Draco's mission. Snape knows a lot, but not everything. In particular, Snape does not know about the cabinets and that they can be used to get death eaters into Hogwarts. Snape does not know the significance of the RoR storeroom to Draco's plan.

Snape has also told Dumbledore of the unbreakable vow.

Dumbledore has misinterpreted the attempts on his life (Katie, Ron) and believes that Voldemort has given Draco the "impossible" task of killing him. Dumbledore is overconfident in the protections he has placed on Hogwarts, believing Hogwarts Castle is safe from any invasion.

When Harry reports Draco's "whooping" from the RoR, Dumbledore thinks Draco has found some magical object he can use to kill Dumbledore. Dumbledore is confident he can protect himself from any magic Draco can have come up with.

Also, Dumbledore does not consider that Voldemort is also deceiving Draco, intending more damage than just the task he assigned Draco.

Dumbledore knows (from Snape) some of the detailed plans. The action will start when he leaves Hogwarts for a short drink in Hogsmeade. Draco will use this opportunity to set some sort of trap on the tower. Draco will use the dark mark to draw Dumbledore to the tower.

Dumbledore decides to precipitate Draco's action by leaving the castle. He brings extra protecton into the castle, and alerts Mcgonagall, Flitwick, and others to patrol. He does not assign a patrol to the corridor outside the RoR. Dumbledore sends Harry off to "get his cloak" and uses that time to alert Snape to be ready and waiting.

Dumbledore and Harry leave for the horcrux hunt. Dumbledore makes sure he is seen, but Harry is not.

Dumbledore and Harry return to Hogsmeade. The potion has weakened Dumbledore. He sees the dark mark and knows that Draco has started his plan. He goes to the tower, expecting to be able to get Harry out of harm's way, but is foiled when Draco arrives on the tower. Dumbledore delays Draco with conversation, hoping Snape will arrive.

Flitwick alerts Snape, who knows the action will be on the tower. However, when Snape arrives, there are, unexpectedly, death eaters on the tower. Whatever plans Dumbledore and Snape had for "saving" Draco and circumventing the vow are ruined.

Does this sound reasonable?

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


Thom Matheson - Jan 19, 2007 8:41 am (#1231 of 1629)

But, if Dumbledore knew and anticipated Malfoy's attack at the school and was hiding out to "spring" the trap and alert Severus, why not put Horcrux hunting off for a day or so, and just wait to close in on the Tower? I mean, that if Dumbledore was really thinking that the attack would happen, I can't see him leaving the area and facing possible injury with the search for another Horcrux, knowing that his school was probably in danger.

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


Soul Search - Jan 19, 2007 10:29 am (#1232 of 1629)

Thom Matheson,

why not put Horcrux hunting off for a day or so ...


I agree, and have suggested it before. It might mean we have missed something, but otherwise all I can think of:

Dumbledore wasn't sure Draco would take action that night.

Dumbledore didn't think Draco's actions would be that serious and would be targeted only to himself. He underestimated his enemy (not for the first time.)

Dumbledore knew he was at risk, and thought it really important to take Harry on a horcrux hunt, or that particular horcrux hunt.

Dumbledore was overconfident.

My thought has been that the prudent action would have been to brazenly go into Hogsmeade, then sneak back and hide on the tower or outside the RoR. Dumbledore's actions suggest he thought the horcrux hunt more important.

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


T Vrana - Jan 19, 2007 11:04 am (#1233 of 1629)

soul search- I tend to agree with all four reasons (unless it did all go as planned, then I agree with the first three).

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 19, 2007 10:40 pm (#1234 of 1629)

But if DD had already sent a message to Snape when he arrived on the tower,why is he so insistent on sending Harry to fetch him?If he just wanted him out of the way,he could have told him to leave.After all Harry had sworn to obey him. - mona amon

For what it's worth, this is what I think the Patronus would've said:

Severus- I'm back, am on the Tower, and am aware we have visitors, just as we suspected. I'm sending Harry down to your quarters under his Cloak. Freeze him once he arrives, then come to me with the knowing that a shield is in place upon me. We might very well be able to let it be seen you have lived up to your mission. Do not fear. I will confirm upon your arrival.

It is true Harry said he'd do as DD said. But I think DD knows Harry, and we know Harry. It would be foolish for DD to think Harry wouldn't run around in the castle under the Cloak and try to help out somehow. He needed to get Harry out of the way.

Again, I accept that DD is dead. I just think the potion/hand injuries killed him, not Severus.

Dumbledore's actions suggest he thought the horcrux hunt more important. - Soul Search

I think this is so.

~edited for clarity

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 19, 2007 11:30 pm (#1235 of 1629)

Additionally, I feel it's crucial to the plot that DD is ruined by the horcruxes. This is why Harry is the key. DD cannot withstand destroying the horcruxes but Harry can. The whole of book 6 seems to be for teaching Harry to set out to destroy the horcruxes, not to accompany DD nor to wait for DD to destroy them so Harry can get Vold. To me, DD must be vulnerable to the horcruxes in order for the story to move forward. (I'm reluctant to make this analogy but ... Gandalf couldn't bring the Ring to Mordor. Frodo had to do it because he was the most *immune* to it). Does this make sense?

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


TomProffitt - Jan 20, 2007 5:38 am (#1236 of 1629)

me and my shadow 813, no, I don't think that Harry has any special immunity to the Horcruxes that Dumbledore does not. But, I think that you are correct in that Dumbledore's prime goal during book 6 was to teach Harry how to carry on the task.

I believe Dumbledore went Horcrux hunting on the night of the attack because he knew that his time is limited. I believe his injury from the Ring Horcrux was more dangerous than the Headmaster would say.

On top of all of this I still have trouble accepting that Severus could not have talked his way out of the Vow if he had wanted to. Riddle would never take an Unbreakable Vow for anyone under any circumstances, so I can't imagine that he would expect his minions to do the same (unless they were taking one to him). I don't see how Narcissa & Bellatrix had any leverage to compel Severus to do it. I think this is important in understanding the night on the Tower, because it has significant impact on what Dumbledore thinks Draco is up to.

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


rambkowalczyk - Jan 20, 2007 7:33 am (#1237 of 1629)

For what it's worth, this is what I think the Patronus would've said: Severus- I'm back, am on the Tower, and am aware we have visitors, just as we suspected. I'm sending Harry down to your quarters under his Cloak. Freeze him once he arrives then come to me with the knowing that a shield is in place upon me. We might very well be able to let it be seen you have lived up to your mission. Do not fear. I will confirm upon your arrival. me and my shadow 813

I like this idea in general. It proposes a way to get rid of Harry and sort of implies that Snape stunned Flitwick because he thought he was Harry.

The only problem is I don't think there is any shield that can withstand the AK curse. But I'll accept for the time being that maybe the whole AK thing was a grand deception.

But this idea is consistent with my idea that Dumbledore was wearing the real horcrux (or what he thought was real) and would have basically said come up and kill the soul that is in the horcrux. The Death Eaters will believe you killed me and your cover is safe.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 20, 2007 9:26 am (#1238 of 1629)

I should preface by saying *if* DD must die, than in literary/genre terms it fits that the old wizard dies from that which the new wizard will not. I suppose this could just as easily be Severus as being a horcrux, but that's not my belief as he has been positioned as the catalyst of the entire story.

Tom, it’s surely possible Harry wasn’t damaged by the diary because Tom chose not to damage him. However, from our example of Harry with a horcrux, compared to DD with horcrux, it seems their reactions have been shown as different.

I feel it extremely probable Riddle would ask of his minions that which he wouldn’t do. However, I understand your point about not wanting them to take a Vow to anyone except him. But Narcissa’s request was odd circumstances. The entire visit was a power tripping head game between Severus and Bella. He was probably freaking out that her keen eye would find a hole in his story and she’d run back to Vold with it. A highly possible scenario, unless he ensured his image and took a simple vow to “watch over and protect Draco”. Seemed easy enough but I think it very likely he was not aware of the last of three terms to that agreement (hand twitching) but was in over his head at that point. No way would he say, “I will”, “I will”, then “No” on the last point.

Edit: Interesting afterthought- the following chapter is called Will and Won't. Is this also an echo of Severus's last wish?

rambkowalcyk, I’ve felt the locket is being used as a shield but that it wasn’t the horcrux. However, I'm intrigued by it and I wonder if Kreacher switched them back again after RAB was poisoned, since Kreacher doesn’t like when people go against their masters… And since DD is so good at detecting magic, maybe he realised it.

Confused yet? (edited for *attempted* clarity)

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


TomProffitt - Jan 20, 2007 12:54 pm (#1239 of 1629)

He was probably freaking out that her keen eye would find a hole in his story and she’d run back to Vold with it. --- me and my shadow 813

(Really the wrong thread, but since it started here I'll finish here)

I just don't buy into this. Bellatrix doesn't have any leverage. Severus has already convinced Riddle he is worth keeping alive. Riddle doesn't trust anyone, so there is nothing Bellatrix could possibly bring forward that would have any impact.

Essentially, Severus' bluff is, "You can't convince Riddle of anything."

And the answer to the bluff being called is, "You're in deep trouble with Riddle if you go to him with something you can't prove."

It's more of a no- win situation for Narcissa & Bellatrix, or else Narcissa wouldn't be (literally) begging him.

It is worthless to go to Riddle with unproven suspiscions, as that is Riddle's status quo, everyone is suspect, no one is trusted. Snape has the power, not the sisters.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 20, 2007 1:41 pm (#1240 of 1629)

I’m not sure where else to take my response, so will add it here but welcome it being relocated.

Bellatrix doesn't have any leverage. Severus has already convinced Riddle he is worth keeping alive. Riddle doesn't trust anyone, so there is nothing Bellatrix could possibly bring forward that would have any impact. – TomProffitt

I understand your view, Tom. Looking at from Severus’s view, however, I would not feel at all confident that it’s my word against Bella’s and Vold will not take her word into consideration. I feel he most certainly would.

I suppose I consider them like an organised crime-type mentality - Why would Vold feel more comfortable with Severus’ word than Bella when she spent all those years sitting in a cell in honour of Vold? She is a Devotee if there ever was one. It’s all about the loyalty. At that point (chapter 2) Severus, to me, had yet to display such loyalty as Bella and he knows it. It doesn’t matter to me that Severus discounted her action of staying in prison, that he made it out to be a fine and admirable “gesture”. Obviously he was trying to cut her down, as are most of his and her remarks in that chapter. I just cannot believe that a double agent would be confident at any point during their masquerade, especially if they're as smart as Severus.

It's more of a no- win situation for Narcissa & Bellatrix, or else Narcissa wouldn't be (literally) begging him.

I feel Narcissa was literally begging because her husband screwed up and Vold is taking it out on her son, who it seems she sincerely cares about. She has nowhere else to turn when Vold is determined to punish Lucius. I don't think Bella cared a bit about why Narcissa was there. She said she thought Draco's task was an honour.

Basically, I feel Severus was not Vold's favourite, there is no favourite, never was a favourite, but now with such a monumental War Badge on his chest that he killed the only wizard Vold ever feared, Severus *now* can be confident. He's at Vold's right hand for book 7 and will be the first ever to be trusted, in my opinion. I am not expecting to convert you, Tom, I just wanted to respond.

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


journeymom - Jan 20, 2007 2:55 pm (#1241 of 1629)

Me and my, I like your Gandalf analogy. I like the idea that Harry is immune to the horcruxes, but it is mere speculation.

Back to Dumbledore's death. In order for neither Harry nor Snape to be guilty of killing Albus, neither the cave potion nor the AK can have killed Albus. And as Albus was speaking almost until the moment Snape sent the AK, that would imply amazing timing on Snape's part.

Did Snape know the moment Albus died? Could he, perhaps, 'see' that in Albus's eyes, via legilimency? Then he hit him with the AK and it threw him over the battlements, already dead.

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


T Vrana - Jan 20, 2007 3:39 pm (#1242 of 1629)

journeymom-- That would be quite a coincidence, I think. Would we accept, as readers, that DD died at just the right moment? I have a hard time with that one. Unless he was holding on by shear will until Snape arrived. Hmmm...not sure.

I still like the idea of a Weasley shield against a half-hearted AK.

Not sure if it belongs here, but as it is already started, I don't think Bella had much leverage for three reasons:

1) She was not supposed to be at Snape's discussing his task to begin with.

2) She was part of the crew that lost the Prophesy

3) She seemed a little stung that Snape knew about the task, and when Snape insinuated that LV no longer confides in her.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 20, 2007 5:25 pm (#1243 of 1629)

journeymom & T Vrana, I like the idea (well I don't *like* any idea about DD's death but I'll agree with it) that DD was holding on until Severus arrived. It could fit given the sliding down the wall, the stalling for time, the "he's not long for this world anyway" DE comment, etc.

I found a spot for my Vow-oriented post on an old "The Vow and why Snape Took It" thread (in Theories folder) and will respond to T Vrana's comments there.

Edit: I don't feel Harry's actions in the Cave qualify as killing DD. It seems DD played down the "the potion will kill me" and Harry wondered if he was about to force feed DD a potion that would "cause him unendurable pain". I realise it would also qualify as an Unforgivable (Crucio-type spell) but I feel it isn't the same as pointing a wand at someone and commanding a spell...

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


mona amon - Jan 22, 2007 7:31 am (#1244 of 1629)

Thanks for the summary, soul search.

Most of your points seem pretty reasonable, but it all assumes a detailed knowledge of Draco's plans on the part of Snape and DD that I don't feel they actually had.

Snape knew Draco had been given a mission. He probably also knew what that mission was, and would have informed DD about it. But he never found out how Draco was actually planning to achieve his goal (whatever that was).

In short,

I believe DD and Snape knew Draco was trying to get DE's into Hogwarts.

DD never believed he would succeed. (As you have pointed out.) Snape may not have been so optimistic. (Was that what they were arguing about in the forest?)

DD and Snape did not know about the Imperious curse on Rosmerta, the enchanted coins, the Death Mark trap.

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


mona amon - Jan 22, 2007 8:26 am (#1245 of 1629)

(Continuing the previous post) So DD would not have been anticipating that Draco would take any action when he left the school, but asked the order members to patrol, (his usual precaution )just in case.

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


Soul Search - Jan 22, 2007 9:01 am (#1246 of 1629)

mona amon,

We don't, of course, have canon knowledge of Draco's initial task, why Draco sent the cursed necklace and poisoned meade, how Draco's task might of changed, or what Voldemort really had in mind for Hogwarts and Draco. About all we can say with any certainty is that the task was "impossible," that the cabinets were useful for the initial task and, by the time of the tower events, killing Dumbledore had been included.

Not knowing the task makes "who knew what, when" difficult, as well. The summary you reference was an attempt to circumvent most of the unknown by starting with what happened, then work backwards to establish what had to have been known, or assumed. For example, the summary concluded that Dumbledore thought Draco's only task was killing him, but was mistaken; there was more to it, and more than even Draco knew.

So DD would not have been anticipating that Draco would take any action ...

Dumbledore increased the protection on the castle that night. He pulled the aurors who had been patrolling outside, to inside the castle, brought in Bill and Lupin from the Order, and alerted McGonagall and Flitwick to patrol. This increased protection would suggest Dumbledore, at least, suspected something might happen after he left the castle that night.

Another thought for why Snape seemed to be ready and waiting. I have, previously, assumed that Snape was ready because Dumbledore told him something might happen. It is just as likely that Voldemort had told Snape to be ready and had given him specific instructions. Snape did tell other death eaters to leave Harry alone, because it was Voldemort's orders.

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


mona amon - Jan 23, 2007 3:46 am (#1247 of 1629)

We don't, of course, have canon knowledge of Draco's initial task, why Draco sent the cursed necklace and poisoned meade, how Draco's task might of changed, or what Voldemort really had in mind for Hogwarts and Draco.-SoulSearch

Well, we have Draco in the tower scene, giving quite a detailed explanation to DD (and us) of how he's been working on killing him for the past year, so I think we can assume that this was the task given to him by Voldemort, and the one which Snape swore to Narcissa he would complete, if Draco failed.

If the task involved anything else, then both Draco and Snape have failed to carry it out, so that would mean Snape would have to die from the UV.

Dumbledore increased the protection on the castle that night.

We don't know this. He might very well have been putting in extra safeguards every time he left the school. It just hasn't been mentioned.

It is just as likely that Voldemort had told Snape to be ready and had given him specific instructions.

You have a point there. But since the instructions would have been something like "tonight's the night. Be prepared to kill DD if the others fail", I cannot imagine that a Snape who is loyal to DD would not have done something to prevent the fiasco that eventually happened.

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


Soul Search - Jan 23, 2007 7:22 am (#1248 of 1629)

mona amon,

Discussion of Draco's initial task has been ongoing since the first day after HBP's release. I tried to cite threads, but some seem to be gone. The problem is we get mixed messages from canon. Just hitting the high points:

In "Spinner's End," Narcissa establishes that the task is "impossible" and that even Voldemort failed to accomplish it. Either killing Dumbledore or getting death eaters into Hogwarts could fit these criteria, although with a lot of discussion both ways.

In "Draco's Detour," Narcissa says to Harry that Dumbledore won't be around forever, suggesting Dumbledore is Draco's initial task. She also hints that Harry won't be around forever either, but that is a separate discussion.

In "Draco's Detour," Draco speaks to Borgin about the cabinets. Suggesting getting death eaters into Hogwarts is the initial task. The thought is that the cabinets aren't needed for Draco to kill Dumbledore.

On the train, Draco is very confident. Too confident for the task to be more than getting the cabinets fixed.

Throughout HBP Draco is using every spare minute in the RoR trying to fix the cabinets, suggesting getting death eaters into Hogwarts is the most important task.

Draco makes two, rather lame, attempts on Dumbledore. This is interpreted as being desparate acts, rather than part of some well thought out plan. Draco makes no more attempts on Dumbledore, suggesting that killing Dumbledore was not his initial task.

Draco is discovered crying to Myrtle in the bathroom. This seems to fit his not being able to fix the cabinets, rather than the failure of the necklace or meade.

Draco is "whooping" in the RoR. It seems he has fixed the cabinets. This would fit using the cabinets as his "impossible" task of getting death eaters into Hogwarts.

On the tower, Draco relates that he has been trying to kill Dumbledore, which might be true, but not necessarily that killing Dumbledore was the task assigned by Voldemort.

Draco tells Dumbledore that he did not expect Greyback. But he did expect death eaters, suggesting that getting them into the castle was his initial task.

So, the canon hints are not definitive, either way.

My read has been that Voldemort, initially, assigned Draco the task of getting death eaters into Hogwarts. Draco figured out the cabinets and was confident he could fix them. As time passed Draco became desparate and thought to kill Dumbledore to placate Voldemort and save his family. Voldemort was upset that Draco hadn't accomplished his task and that he tried to kill Dumbledore without orders. Voldemort then included killing Dumbledore in Draco's task, but after death eaters had been let into Hogwarts.

This scenario seems to fit all the canon clues.

Note that what was Draco's initial task and what Dumbledore thought was Draco's task are probably two different things.

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


haymoni - Jan 23, 2007 7:33 am (#1249 of 1629)

If the task was taking the school, you'd have to kill Dumbledore and get DEs in to deal with the rest of the staff and students.

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


T Vrana - Jan 23, 2007 8:03 am (#1250 of 1629)

It may not have been to take the school, but something else. Trelawney (for the prophesy), whatever LV wanted the night he asked DD for a job, something from the RoR or something from the Chamber. Filch had begun searching students leaving school this year. Why?

If the task involved anything else, then both Draco and Snape have failed to carry it out,so that would mean Snape would have to die from the UV.

Not necessarily. When Draco used the Peruvian Darkness Powder, it kept Ron from seeing how many DEs had entered the castle. There is also a reference to the DEs splitting up and some fighting at the base of the staircase. Where did the others go? If Draco's task was to retireive something from Hogwarts, it may have happened without us seeing it. Yet.

Harry thought Draco might be trying to kill DD for revenge for his father's imprisonment. He may be right. This would fit Draco trying all year, but not on LV's orders.

This is discussed on its own thread though...
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1251 to 1275

Post  Lady Arabella on Sun May 22, 2011 11:22 pm


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


mona amon - Jan 24, 2007 1:55 am (#1251 of 1629)

Soul Search, thanks for taking the trouble. I'll have a look at the 'Draco's Task' thread.

Severus- I'm back, am on the Tower, and am aware we have visitors, just as we suspected. I'm sending Harry down to your quarters under his Cloak. Freeze him once he arrives....me and my shadow.

This scenario would explain a lot, and yes, I suppose Harry may not obey him under the circumstances, but I'm not quite convinced. What about Flitwick?

I feel we have to take the scene at face value-Snape learns about the presence of DE's from Flitwick. He does not know whether DD has returned from the horcrux hunt, his only thought is to get to Draco. He follows the action and ends up on the tower.

I love your idea about Harry being somehow better suited to destroy the Horcruxes than DD, and the Gandalf analogy. Could it be something to do with the Prophecy? Anyway, wrong thread I guess.

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


wynnleaf - Jan 24, 2007 8:55 am (#1252 of 1629)

Soul Search, I like your summary at #1230.

I also like me and my shadow's idea about the patronus message.

I'm not certain that I agree with all of these, but they do "fit" within most canon clues.

A few things I'd add that may be clues to a slightly different scenario:

- The Death Eaters seem unsurprised to see Snape on the tower, suggesting that they had talked previously. If a DE told him anything about their plan, you'd think he'd know DE's were planning to come into the castle.

- Dumbledore brought in a number of Order members to patrol the castle, including Lupin who we'd last been told was on a deeply undercover mission with the werewolves. This suggests that DD knew there might be a lot more trouble on that particular night than just Draco alone trying to kill him. Granted, he might have thought it would be Draco and perhaps some friends, but he did seem to expect more than just Draco causing trouble.

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


journeymom - Jan 24, 2007 10:40 am (#1253 of 1629)

One little problem with the Gandalf/Frodo analogy is that ultimately Frodo failed. He gave in to the power of the ring and kept it. Gollum wrestled it away from Frodo and accidentally destroyed the ring, along with himself. (I know, I know, parallels to other stories can only be taken so far!)

P.M.S. Patronus Messaging System. I wish knew how it works!

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


Soul Search - Jan 24, 2007 11:15 am (#1254 of 1629)

wynnleaf,

Good additions. The #1230 post was "high points," just to keep the post of managable length.

Exactly what Dumbledore (and Snape) thought Draco's task was can be a little flexible, and still have the summary end up in the same place.

I agree that Dumbledore had to suspect Draco was trying to get death eaters into the castle, but he did not know about the cabinets. Dumbledore was overconfident, in spite of the extra precautions.

We also have Filch scanning everyone leaving the castle, which could mean Dumbledore knew, or suspected, something that we don't know about.

I agree that Snape must have known about death eaters invading Hogwarts, but I can't quite figure out how he could know that and not know about the cabinets or RoR.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 24, 2007 2:41 pm (#1255 of 1629)

The Death Eaters seem unsurprised to see Snape on the tower, suggesting that they had talked previously. If a DE told him anything about their plan, you'd think he'd know DE's were planning to come into the castle. – wynnleaf

Been thinking the same thing. All they say when he arrives is "we've got a problem" or something similar. Not, "Severus! We've been wondering where the heck you were." So to me, it even implies he might have seen and spoken to them just prior to the Tower.

Dumbledore brought in a number of Order members to patrol the castle, including Lupin who we'd last been told was on a deeply undercover mission with the werewolves. This suggests that DD knew there might be a lot more trouble on that particular night than just Draco alone trying to kill him. Granted, he might have thought it would be Draco and perhaps some friends, but he did seem to expect more than just Draco causing trouble. – wynnleaf

Again, same as what I've been pondering. Why pull Remus off his mission just to patrol? And Bill, someone who's not one of the usual crowd? Seems more than beefed up security for Draco, especially if we're to assume the Task was to kill DD and DD wasn't even in the castle.

mona amon, thanks for your reply. I agree, this could all be *reading into it* way too much. I'm quite Luna-esque in that regard - but I won't be heartbroken if this is all wrong. It's fun to wonder.

journeymom, my analogy was more about the Old Wizard being more vulnerable than the New Wizard. But even if Harry ends up in a Frodo-like position (which I doubt JKR would use as such an exact formula but you never know) I'm sure there will be a Gollum-like creature (Kreacher? he he) to foil the foiled plan. Confused as I am?

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


mona amon - Jan 25, 2007 2:12 am (#1256 of 1629)

Why should the DE's be surprised? They knew that Snape was living at Hogwarts after all. As soon as they see its only Snape, and not some member of the order, they relax and explain the problem they are having.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 25, 2007 4:03 pm (#1257 of 1629)

mona, regarding your above question - to me it is their lack of "greeting" and speaking as if they just saw him a few minutes ago. If there was not at the very least a DE discussion about their plans to enter the school that night, wouldn't they assume Severus would be surprised to see them? I feel they'd greet him (or even something like "Oh good, Severus figured out we're up here") and not just say "we've got a problem"? To me it implies they could have met just prior to the Tower.

For me the point to all this is *did Severus, and thus DD, know the DE's were planning to enter that night*. It seems clues might point to Yes.

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


Choices - Jan 25, 2007 5:36 pm (#1258 of 1629)

To me, their lack of "greeting" simply means they assume Snape is one of them, and not being the most friendly of people, the DE gets right to the heart of the matter - "We have a problem." It was not the time for chit-chat.

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


haymoni - Jan 25, 2007 5:39 pm (#1259 of 1629)

I don't think "manners" and "Death Eater" often end up in the same sentance.

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


T Vrana - Jan 25, 2007 6:14 pm (#1260 of 1629)

Haymoni- LOL!

I'm guessing Snape better play up how old and weak DD was. He might want to throw in how he never could have done it otherwise. If he doesn't, LV may decide to demonstrate his superiority. Ouch....

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 25, 2007 6:29 pm (#1261 of 1629)

Good points, Choices and haymoni - you're probably right. As I said, I'm quite a Luna and if there's not a conspiracy theory nearby I'll invent one (but I'm getting better). Still, I'm not giving up on the idea that Severus was informed the DE's were coming that night, hence the patroling. DD was gone quite often during the entire HBP and we didn't see nor hear of such intense patroling going on until that night. Granted, he says in Seer Overheard, "Tonight, when I leave, there will again be additional protection in place." Why have a non-Hogwarts werewolf, curse-breaker, and auror join in to patrol?

I feel the plan came together that night (hence Draco whooping) just prior to DD and Harry leaving for the Cave. We know that Harry gave Dobby and Kreacher the job of following Draco. It is possible that Dobby continued to watch Draco's movements and witnessed the whooping but was too late to tell Harry. We know Dobby likes working for DD. We know DD trusts Severus and would likely instruct information normally between himself and Dobby passed on to Severus in DD's absence. Is it possible Dobby is more involved in the night's events than we know? I've theorised Dobby cast the Dark Mark over the Tower at Severus's request in order to alert DD of the DE's presence at the castle. Any thoughts?

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


Thom Matheson - Jan 25, 2007 9:23 pm (#1262 of 1629)

As I remember, the Mark can only be conjured up with a wand, which no house elf could get or use.

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


T Vrana - Jan 26, 2007 10:08 am (#1263 of 1629)

Legally...does that mean they can't?

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 26, 2007 2:03 pm (#1264 of 1629)

I should preface this with a clarification, since it is stated on the Forum that “theories” are to have canon as back-up; “predictions” or speculations are ideas with no firm canon backing it up. So I am not “theorising” that Dobby conjured the Mark. I am speculating (which is what I’m usually doing since we’ve all dissected canon so thoroughly already).

Severus could have used Dobby to cast the Mark if he needed to, if for instance he promised DD he would remain in his dungeon office and which I assume has no windows, although I think is directly below the Tower.

As JKR made a point of stating, Dobby likes keeping DD’s secrets – and given that DD is now dead – we might assume that some secrets have already been revealed to Dobby. Also, Dobby is the only “free” elf we know of and we've no precedent for what true elven magic is capable of. He can also apparate/disapparate within Hogwarts.

The Lex on Dobby: “House-elves have a very powerful magic all their own, magic which requires none of the types of focusing tools (wands or words) that Wizard magic requires… He also can disappear at will, which would seem to be a form of Apparition but a form which can be done within Hogwarts, where, as Hermione constantly reminds Harry and Ron, normal Wizarding Apparition is simply not possible. All of these are very powerful charms.”

...and a bit on Winky: “Barty Crouch Sr. sacked her when she was found holding a wand at the Quidditch World Cup”.

I don't know if it was stated in GoF that it was impossible for Winky to have conjured the Mark...

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 29, 2007 7:53 pm (#1265 of 1629)

I stumbled upon more potential "evidence" that the locket could have blocked Severus's AK and that DD died from the ring curse and green potion.

Lex definition of AK: One of the Unforgivable Curses (GF14), said to be unblockable and with no counter-curse, although Dumbledore managed to protect Harry by putting some statues in its way during his duel with Voldemort in the Atrium (OP36).

The statues were made of gold. The locket was made of gold. Gold is a recurring theme in protection (red and gold = fawkes, all things Gryffindor, other obvious references that I can cite if need be). The statues might have shattered but the locket is so compact it merely split and opened on its hinges.

Thus Severus's AK could have been feable as can be, didn't matter. He didn't mean it, he was *acting*, the impact of the metal receiving the spell tossed DD over the Tower (hence why it didn't look like an AK) and Severus's soul is intact. Any thoughts?

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


Thom Matheson - Jan 29, 2007 9:18 pm (#1266 of 1629)

I have to go the other way here. So yes, my thought is that the locket was in his pocket.

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


T Vrana - Jan 30, 2007 6:22 am (#1267 of 1629)

m & M shadow- I'm with Thom here. How would the locket have come off his neck when his glasses were just a little askew? Locket in pocket.

But, I still hold out the possibiiity that Snape sent a half hearted AK, and the Weasley's shielding line may have played a part. DD was clutching his chest...

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


wynnleaf - Jan 30, 2007 7:06 am (#1268 of 1629)

Back to Me and My's comment a few back about DD saying that he'd have extra protection in the castle that night. I do think bringing in Lupin, Bill the cursebreaker, and Tonks along with staff support was a significant amount of extra protection, over and above what DD seemed to have done in his many other absences over the year (Harry not having seen such a large group while watching the Marauder's Map so often). However, if DD knew to bring in extra protection that night, that would seem to indicate that he knew that Draco would be ready to make his attempt that night. I can several theories that could explain how DD could know that, but they don't line up with DD's comments to Draco on the tower where he seemed not to know about the vanishing cabinet project.

As regards the locket out of the pocket -- very good point, T Vrana. If the force of the fall only knocked DD's glasses slightly askew, why did it throw the locket out of his pocket?

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


wynnleaf - Jan 30, 2007 7:27 am (#1269 of 1629)

I just was thinking about something from the Wizengamot trial thread down below.

We never have any indicators as to what happened to DD's body after the fall from the tower. Harry almost expected to see his body in his office, but it wasn't there. Even though his body was presumably in the castle up until the funeral, we never are told of anyone going to see it. And then Hagrid carried it completely wrapped up to the burial place. Just a little odd, especially when JKR does have Harry wonder about the body.

If you haven't voted in the Wizengamot trial of Snape further down the list of threads, today is the last day to vote.

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


Luna Logic - Jan 30, 2007 10:39 am (#1270 of 1629)
Edited by Jan 30, 2007 10:39 am

Going to check my vote on the Wizengamot trial, I found this by Elanor (explaining her vote):

Elanor (january 9th) : "I do like the idea that DD had the real locket on him at that time and that Snape's AK destroyed the part of Voldemort's soul concealed in the real locket. But I think DD was already dying when Snape casted the AK, and that either the potion or the fall killed him in the end."

WHOO ! Is that the point which this discussion has reached?

(I was trying to understand >here< the lockets discussions, but I didn't grasp the "Voldemort's part of soul" idea)Too late to change my vote, to A !

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


journeymom - Jan 30, 2007 10:46 am (#1271 of 1629)

Thus Severus's AK could have been feable as can be, didn't matter. He didn't mean it, he was *acting*, the impact of the metal receiving the spell tossed DD over the Tower (hence why it didn't look like an AK) and Severus's soul is intact. Any thoughts? --Me and My

I really like this idea, posted a theory very similar to this a while back. But the problem with it is that it requires DD to die between the moment he says, "Severus, please...." and mere moments later when Snape sends the AK. That's amazing timing on Severus's part and I almost think it would be approching credulity on JKR's part if this were the case.

Also, Dumbledore absolutely had to have been dead before Snape blasted him over the edge, if his soul is to remain intact, otherwise Snape is still guilty of murder, as the fall (or, rather, the landing) would kill DD as well.

Regarding DD's glasses and the locket, I just have a difficult time making anything of it other than how it looks on the surface. What does it matter if the locket was in or out of his pocket? What does it prove if his glasses are askew on his face or in pieces on the ground? JKR is not an expert in physics. She does expertly provide little details that prove to be important later. But this instance isn't like that. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

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


journeymom - Jan 30, 2007 10:54 am (#1272 of 1629)

Okay, okay, Dumbledore made sure the fake locket was out where Harry could find it. I can go for that.

If Snape blasted the bit of Voldemort's soul in the real locket, how would Harry find out about it? Here's the scenario I imagine. None of the adults saw Harry pick up the fake locket beside Dumbledore, did they? Someone, whoever prepared Dumbledore's body, might have found the locket and put it aside. Somehow, and any number of possibilities come to mind, somehow Harry finds out about this other locket.

Though if Dumbledore had the real locket around his neck the entire evening, why didn't he mention it to Harry?

Forgive me, please, if someone already came to this conclusion and it's been discussed to death.

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

-
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 30, 2007 1:53 pm (#1273 of 1629)

I agree, Journeymom. If the real locket was around Dumbledore's neck, why was there a fake found beside the body? What purpose would a fake serve if the real one has already been destroyed? Nope, I think it more likely Dumbledore had a Weasley shield than the real horcrux.

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

-
Thom Matheson - Jan 30, 2007 4:43 pm (#1274 of 1629)

Are you saying that the theory of the real locket being at #12 is wrong?

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


Nicholas Schouten - Jan 30, 2007 4:59 pm (#1275 of 1629)

Journeymom noted: "Thus Severus's AK could have been feable as can be, didn't matter. He didn't mean it, he was *acting*, the impact of the metal receiving the spell tossed DD over the Tower (hence why it didn't look like an AK) and Severus's soul is intact. Any thoughts? " --Me and My

I really like this idea, posted a theory very similar to this a while back. But the problem with it is that it requires DD to die between the moment he says, "Severus, please...." and mere moments later when Snape sends the AK. That's amazing timing on Severus's part and I almost think it would be approching credulity on JKR's part if this were the case."

Actually I don't think it requires that DD die in those few moments. Depending on the definition of "murder", if Snape's intent was only to fake the AK, if he was only "acting", then the death is not "murder", but akin to an "accident" (avoiding the whole idea of whether a reasonable person would expect "playing with guns" could result in a death and whether "negligence" in that expectation would equal "murder".) This would make the whole situation much more like an "accident" that happens to a stuntman in the movies that results in his death--dangerous activity undertaken by those knowing the risks, without the intent of causing death.

No intent, no "murder", no splitting of Snape's soul. Just my 2 knuts.

-Nick

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1276 to 1300

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 3:43 pm


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


T Vrana - Jan 30, 2007 6:50 pm (#1276 of 1629)

THOM- Are you saying that the theory of the real locket being at #12 is wrong?

I don't think anyone of us can say if it is right or wrong. I think there are two very real possibilities based on what we know:

1) The locket that was at #12 is the horcrux locket

2) The 'body' that jumped out of the lake in the cave in response to Harry's accio, was clutching the horcrux locket, or had the horcrux locket in a pocket

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


mona amon - Jan 30, 2007 7:34 pm (#1277 of 1629)

Interesting point, me and my shadow,but those statues were pretty solid. If gold can protect in the way you describe,I think we'd have seen some AK-proof golden vests at Weasly's Wizard Wheezes instead of the minor jinx sheilds. On the other hand, maybe only a very few people knew about it.

A random thought on reading Luna's post-can an AK destroy a piece of soul? Or would you need a special spell to do it?

However, if DD knew to bring in extra protection that night, that would seem to indicate that he knew that Draco would be ready to make his attempt that night.-Wynnleaf

I think DD was just taking no chances, and the increased protection was because of the increased risk as the end of term drew near. But I dont think he was actually expecting an attack that night.

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


Thom Matheson - Jan 30, 2007 7:46 pm (#1278 of 1629)

T, you capped my name? I'm hurt. I knew that would bring you out. I can't stop laughing, signed, your friend lightweight.Smile

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


T Vrana - Jan 30, 2007 8:37 pm (#1279 of 1629)

Thom- Don't be hurt (as if). Wasn't trying to cap the whole name. Round 2?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [

HR]Thom Matheson - Jan 31, 2007 6:59 am (#1280 of 1629)

Naw, but 10 bucks says we're both wrong

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [

HR]T Vrana - Jan 31, 2007 7:14 am (#1281 of 1629)

On that, we can agree!

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


Thom Matheson - Jan 31, 2007 7:17 am (#1282 of 1629)

But, if it is at #12, I am so going to Woohoo you

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


wynnleaf - Jan 31, 2007 7:24 am (#1283 of 1629)

Didn't JKR make a comment shortly after HBP that sharp readers would be able to guess about one of the horcruxes? I don't recall if she meant the location or just what it was. But I assumed at the time she meant the locket at #12.

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


T Vrana - Jan 31, 2007 7:59 am (#1284 of 1629)

Wynnleaf - She could just as easily have meant the reaction to the 'accio'. Once we realize the horcrux was taken from the basin, on reread, the 'jumping' body in reaction to the 'accio!' makes more sense if the horcrux was trying to respond to the accio. One leaping body that did nothing to deter DD and Harry, makes no sense, when every other spell cast in the cave worked normally. The basin was doing a fine job of protecting the horcrux from accio, every bit of magic DD tried, failed. So having an iferius jump to prevent the accio or deter intruders, makes no sense.

Thom- Can't wait.............to 'HA!' you.

Maybe we'll both be right. The locket at #12 is the horcrux, but whoever is in the lake was carrying another horcrux!

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


wynnleaf - Jan 31, 2007 8:20 am (#1285 of 1629)

“JKR: Well, I'm prepared to bet you now, that at least before the week is out, at least one of the Horcruxes will have been correctly identified by careful re-readers of the books.”

Correctly identified, is quite different from "located." JKR said one of the horcruxes would be more or less easy for a careful reader to "identify." That doesn't sound like she's saying that we figure out where the real locket horcrux is, but that we can figure out what is a specific horcrux. It sounds like JKR means that we have seen a horcrux that we can identify in a re-read.

The only one that most "careful re-readers" latched on to quickly was the locket at #12 Grimmauld. That is a specific item that many readers identified as a likely horcrux.

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


T Vrana - Jan 31, 2007 8:33 am (#1286 of 1629)

Oh, but we already knew there was a locket horcrux. This sounds to me as though she was talking about identifying a horcrux we do not know about. That is, identifying the locket at #12 is just identifying location, not identifying the things we do not know yet, like another object from a founder.

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


wynnleaf - Jan 31, 2007 8:37 am (#1287 of 1629)

Oh, but we already knew there was a locket horcrux. This sounds to me as though she was talking about identifying a horcrux we do not know about. That is, identifying the locket at #12 is just identifying location, not identifying the things we do not know yet, like another object from a founder.

We knew there was a locket horcrux, but had no idea which locket it was. Then, readers focused on the locket at #12 -- which you must admit is, if not the real locket horcrux, at least a deliberate red herring.

But the problem with JKR's comment is that she's talking about identifying a specific object, and that it should be fairly easy for a careful re-reader. Yet there is no other object that people have discovered on a re-read. Yes, there are lots of objects in the stories, but no others that come across as highly likely a horcrux, in a way that fits JKR's comment.

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


T Vrana - Jan 31, 2007 8:59 am (#1288 of 1629)

Then, readers focused on the locket at #12 -- which you must admit is, if not the real locket horcrux, at least a deliberate red herring.

I do think possible red herring, but am prepared to be wrong. Seems not to require a very careful reread.

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


haymoni - Jan 31, 2007 10:00 am (#1289 of 1629)

I'm holding out for Rowena Ravenclaw's tiara.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 31, 2007 12:02 pm (#1290 of 1629)

I'm with you haymoni, I was speaking out loud as I read the last 15 or so posts. The tiara, its the tiara!!!!!

Mickey

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


Madame Pomfrey - Feb 1, 2007 3:47 pm (#1291 of 1629)

Thom,I was refering to the "Dumbledore had the real locket horcrux around his neck" theory. If Dumbledore did have the real one around his neck and that is what Snape's goal was,to destroy the locket horcrux,then,Yes, the one at Grimmauld is definitly a red herring. I just don't think Dumbledore had the real one.Why keep it from Harry and why have a fake? That theory just doesn't make sense to me.

I agree with TVrana. The locket at Grimmauld was quite obvious and didn't need a reread.We were discussing why the locket wouldn't open long before we knew about horcruxes,so I don't think she would have said "a careful reread" I like the idea of the locket horcrux being in the cave on RAB's submerged body.

Haymoni, I think you are right. The tiara is more likely what Jo was refering to than the Grimmauld locket.

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 1, 2007 4:22 pm (#1292 of 1629)

Well I guess we will all find out in about 5 1/2 months.

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


rambkowalczyk - Feb 2, 2007 5:02 am (#1293 of 1629)

If Dumbledore did have the real one around his neck and that is what Snape's goal was,to destroy the locket horcrux,then,Yes, the one at Grimmauld is definitely a red herring. I just don't think Dumbledore had the real one. Why keep it from Harry and why have a fake? That theory just doesn't make sense to me. Madame Pomphrey

Snape's goal was to destroy (or separate) Voldemort's soul from the Locket using the AK curse. It didn't work because neither of them knew that the locket was replaced. or that the horcrux was previously destroyed.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 2, 2007 5:23 am (#1294 of 1629)

So, ramb, are you saying Dumbledore and Snape had a plan to use the real locket, but it went wrong because the locket was a fake, causing Snape to accidently kill Dumbledore? (Mind you, I'm dubious about the whole Hitting-The-Locket-With-An-AK theory. Unless Dumbledore had an X-mark on the outside of his robe indicating exactly where Snape needed to aim, it just seems like trick shootin' outside even the realm of Annie Oakley. But it's interesting to consider, even if I am unconvinced.)

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


Luna Logic - Feb 2, 2007 8:18 am (#1295 of 1629)

rambkowalczyk "Snape's goal was to destroy (or separate) Voldemort's soul from the Locket using the AK curse. It didn't work because neither of them knew that the locket was replaced. or that the horcrux was previously destroyed."

So if Dumbledore had not been trapped on the Tower, he would have gone to Snape, and, together, they would have destroyed the horcrux. Yes, I like that theory.

Other problem, "Hitting-The-Locket-With-An-AK"( Mrs Brisbee).

Magic leaves trace (DD saying). (But if so, would not DD have sensed that the locket was false?)

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


T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 8:33 am (#1296 of 1629)

DD wasn't feeling so well when he grabbed the locket, so I can see him not noticing the lack of magic.

With all that was going on on the tower I just can't see AKing a horcrux around DD's neck as a top priority. What would be the point? There are other horcruxes out there, so waiting for a more convenient time and a less dangerous method wouldn't negatively effect anything.

I agree with Mrs. Brisbee unless there is a really good reason to do this. And then, how did the locket makes its way from around DD's neck?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [


wynnleaf - Feb 2, 2007 9:15 am (#1297 of 1629)

First, I'm not really buying the locket around his neck theory. But anyhow -- why not speculate?

With all that was going on on the tower I just can't see AKing a horcrux around DD's neck as a top priority. What would be the point? There are other horcruxes out there, so waiting for a more convenient time and a less dangerous method wouldn't negatively effect anything. (T Vrana)

Well, we can go back to the idea the DD expected to stage some sort of death in front of Draco, with Snape doing the honors. But in order to stage a death, something needed to die. They plan to use the horcrux, so that Snape has something to kill with the AK. It looks like DD's getting AK'd, but it's really the horcrux. The horcrux locket, being solid and gold, acts a bit like the statues in the MOM and the result is that DD is propelled backward by the force of the AK on the solid gold object. The horcrux dies, but he doesn't. Except that then he does die later -- from the fall? or the poison while lying at the bottom of the tower? Or possibly even later, and Hagrid knows that DD actually died later.

I agree with Mrs. Brisbee unless there is a really good reason to do this. And then, how did the locket makes its way from around DD's neck?

Hm. Okay, DD goes off the tower, but he's not dead yet at the bottom. More of him staging his death scene. Hagrid takes the body away (still alive -- looked like he was sleeping, right?), and DD who is still alive, but dying, passes the locket to Hagrid to do -- whatever -- with it. Then DD dies. Funeral, etc....

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


T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 9:44 am (#1298 of 1629)

Harry found the locket on the ground next to DD. How did it get out from under DD's robes and over his head, when his glasses, on the outside of his head, were just a little crooked?

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


wynnleaf - Feb 2, 2007 10:04 am (#1299 of 1629)

Sorry, I was considering the other theory of two lockets -- one the fake Harry found on the ground, and one the real horcrux around DD's neck.

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


T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 10:46 am (#1300 of 1629)

This theory confuses me. Why would DD have two lockets? Why would he want Harry to think RAB took the horcrux?
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1301 to 1325

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 3:46 pm


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


Choices - Feb 2, 2007 11:35 am (#1301 of 1629)

The fake locket was to throw the DE's off in case they examined his body, although the fall from the tower was perhaps to prevent that from happening. They would fine the fake with a note to Voldemort and not search the body any further. They would hurry to give the note to Voldemort (this is based on Dumbledore writing the note) and not find the real Horcrux locket around Dumbledore's neck. I think Hagrid probably found the real one when he prepared the body for burial.

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


T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 11:42 am (#1302 of 1629)

Why would it matter if they found the real one if it was destroyed?

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


wynnleaf - Feb 2, 2007 12:07 pm (#1303 of 1629)

Well, I guess I was confused about what had been discussed recently, and another theory floating around as well.

There's a theory on the Forum (can't recall whose theory, sorry), that DD knew there was a fake locket. There's varying versions that include DD bringing the fake locket himself, to replace with the real one in the basin; DD already having found the real locket previously and taking Harry to the Cave so that Harry would think DD found the locket there. I think there's other alternative versions. Anyway, the basic idea is that DD left the cave carrying two lockets -- the real one around his neck, and the fake one in his pocket.

Madame Pomfrey were you referring earlier to one of those sort of theories? Or another one?

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


T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 12:49 pm (#1304 of 1629)

It would make me very sad to think Harry's trip to the cave was all faked and staged.

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


rambkowalczyk - Feb 2, 2007 1:48 pm (#1305 of 1629)

Snape's goal was to destroy (or separate) Voldemort's soul from the Locket using the AK curse. It didn't work because neither of them knew that the locket was replaced. or that the horcrux was previously destroyed.

My theory (above) doesn't require 2 lockets to be on Dumbledore's body. There is only the fake locket that Dumbledore found but thought that was real. The idea was to stage Dumbledore's death for the Death Eater witnesses and destroy a horcrux in the process. If the horcrux was real, the AK curse would have destroyed the soul or at least separated it from the locked,Dumbledore would have faked his death and Draco would have been safe.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [


Soul Search - Feb 2, 2007 1:53 pm (#1306 of 1629)

Dumbledore wouldn't do ANYTHING that could clue Voldemort that he knew there were multiple horcruxes.

If one of the death eaters had seen the locket and mentioned it to Voldemort, Harry's quest becomes more difficult, maybe impossible.

I can't buy into any scenario where any locket might be seen.

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


Luna Logic - Feb 3, 2007 5:51 am (#1307 of 1629)

yes, Soul Search, I agree with your point, but in my view, rambkowalczyk's scenario doesn't imply that the locket might be seen. DE (and Harry) would have seen an AK, then Dumbledore falling, and that's all.

I'm not saying that rambkowalczyk's theory is "true", but I think it is compatible with some tiny but important clues, and may be, with the plot and characters (DD and Snape, trying to cope with the Unbreakable Vow). So that theory is worth discussing!

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


Choices - Feb 3, 2007 11:01 am (#1308 of 1629)

Ramb - "There is only the fake locket that Dumbledore found but thought that was real."

I simply can not accept any theory that says Dumbledore could not tell that the locket was a fake. Dumbledore? The greatest wizard in the world, not able to recognize a real Horcrux from a fake Horcrux? Never.


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


me and my shadow 813 - Feb 3, 2007 11:27 am (#1309 of 1629)

I love everyone's ponderings about Locket on DD's neck. How did it get from his neck to the ground? Methinks such a wizard could do it, and he'd want Harry to find it. Harry isn't going to pull DD's robe to expose his chest. I think it was a final part of the *staging* - not that it was a horcrux but that DD might have sensed that it would be useful for Harry and thus needed to find it. It is possible that DD passed on after the fall, laying there at the bottom of the tower, and not because of AK or the fall. There are a million possibilities, and I see this as one of them...

On another matter - Severus's innocence - I find the similarities between these two parallels uncanny.

Harry is forced to promise DD similar to an Unbreakable Vow for those not of the Dark Arts needing death as a penalty:

'Do I have your word?'

'I - yes, of course.'

'If I tell you to hide, you will do so?'

'Yes.'

'If I tell you to flee, you will obey?'

'Yes.'

'If I tell you to leave me, and save yourself, you will do as I tell you?'

'I-'

'Harry?'

They looked at each other for a moment.

'Yes, sir.'

Then in the Cave:

Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the goblet back towards Dumbledore's mouth and tipped it...

And Severus on Tower:

...and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.

It seems, as has been stated many times, a parallel is being drawn between them with DD forcing a promise to do as he says. If hatred and revulsion/repulsed are so similar, it seems the Forest Conversation was *possibly* about this very promise. The line in Harry's promise to "save yourself" seems specifically important here regarding Severus's being more important at this point in the "war" than DD.

Any thoughts?

~edited for clarity

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


T Vrana - Feb 3, 2007 11:29 am (#1310 of 1629)

Whether DD knew it was a fake or not, there wasn't time to examine or discuss it.

If DD had a pre-arranged plan to have Snape AK him to destroy the horcrux locket, then DD would have to have known that the horcrux in the cave was a locket. How would he have known this?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [


Madame Pomfrey - Feb 3, 2007 1:04 pm (#1311 of 1629)

Madame Pomfrey were you referring earlier to one of those sort of theories? Or another one? Wynnleaf

Yes, one of those theories would explain why there would be a real one around Dumbledore's neck and a fake one by his side.I just don't buy it.It would be more imaginable, to me, if Snape Ak'd the fake (he and Dumbledore both thinking it real) and the locket was put at Dumbledore's side by a dying Dumbledore or before he drank the draught . But, the fake locket was only open it didn't have a crack or anything traumatic like the ring did,so I don't think it was Ak'd.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 3, 2007 5:02 pm (#1312 of 1629)

Madame Pomfrey,

I agree that the locket Harry found probably hadn't been AK'd. Remember how the statues as the MOM were affected by AK's? No, if Snape was sending a real AK at something DD was carrying or wearing on his chest, I don't think it was the fake locket horcrux.

It does seem quite hard to believe DD wouldn't have recognized immediately upon picking up the locket that it was just a plain locket -- no horcrux. This after all is a wizard who can tell LV's been around simply by feeling some sort of residual magical signature. How much more should he be able to feel part of LV's soul, if he was holding it in his hand?

No, I think DD knew about the locket, at least after he picked it up. Since he showed no sign of surprise, my guess is that he knew it was a fake from the start.

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


Choices - Feb 3, 2007 6:06 pm (#1313 of 1629)

The AK hitting a locket around Dumbledore's neck would certainly explain why Dumbledore was lifted into the air and over the battlements. No other AK, that has been described to us, has done that.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Feb 3, 2007 7:12 pm (#1314 of 1629)

That's another good point. Dumbledore would have felt magical traces even in the shape he was in. As for Dumbledore's abnormal response to the AK, Maybe he was wearing a Weasley shield,as someone suggested. Reguardless,I would really like to know why Dumbledore was clutching his chest because I think it is a clue rather than his having chest pain or some other ailment.

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


rambkowalczyk - Feb 3, 2007 7:59 pm (#1315 of 1629)

I will admit what follows might be stretching but here goes,

objection, Dumbledore could tell that the locket was fake. This is something I didn't think of but is consistent with the idea that Dumbledore felt for magic to get in the cave. But suppose that Dumbledore and Snape did plan to have Snape AK the horcrux to fake his death. Now it is complicated by the fact that Dumbledore now knows it's a fake. What to do now? Get in touch with Snape. And isn't that what Dumbledore has Harry do?

It would have made more sense if he just sent a Patronus to Snape but Dumbledore has been saying I'm not important. Maybe he decided not to tell Snape it was a fake and die anyway. Now if it happened this way, Snape would be less blamable. After all in his mind he isn't killing Dumbledore and when he does it would be a tragic accident not premeditated murder.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 4, 2007 5:26 am (#1316 of 1629)

While I like your one locket theory, ramb, it still suffers from a few major problems.

I can see the finding the fake locket as unexpected, and Dumbledore deciding that he wouldn't tell Snape to save Snape.

But, the big hole here is still Dumbledore and Snape cooking up a plot together to fake Dumbledore's death. Snape has taken the Unbreakable Vow. If Dumbledore doesn't want Snape to drop dead, than why is Snape in on the plot? I would think he would have plotted with someone else. But Snape needs to know so he can zap the locket. Doesn't add up.

And a locket is small. I still can't see how anyone can hit a hidden locket so precisely. I he could see it that would be one thing, but he couldn't.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 4, 2007 6:46 am (#1317 of 1629)

But, the big hole here is still Dumbledore and Snape cooking up a plot together to fake Dumbledore's death. Snape has taken the Unbreakable Vow. If Dumbledore doesn't want Snape to drop dead, than why is Snape in on the plot? I would think he would have plotted with someone else. But Snape needs to know so he can zap the locket. Doesn't add up. (Mrs Brisbee)

Theories of Dumbledore and Snape attempting to fake Dumbledore's death depend on the possibility of being able to fake your way through an Unbreakable Vow. We don't know that can't be done. If the fulfilling of the Vow is determined by the bonder (Bella) or the person to whom the Vow is made (Narcissa), then it would be possible to deceive them and therefore avoid death. If that was a possibility, DD and Snape could work together to plan a faked death.

And a locket is small. I still can't see how anyone can hit a hidden locket so precisely. I he could see it that would be one thing, but he couldn't. (Mrs Brisbee)

The idea that Snape could be aiming (and hitting) a small object under Dumbledore's cloak may not be so far-fetched. If it was a horcrux, it could be that Snape could sense Voldemort's magic, or his partial soul, in the same way that we're speculating that DD should have been able to sense whether or not it was in the locket. So it could be that Snape could aim not at some guesstimate of where he imagined an unseen object must be, but at a magical signature that he could sense in the same way Dumbledore senses magical signatures.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Feb 4, 2007 6:17 pm (#1318 of 1629)

IF Snape was aiming at what he thought was a horcrux, and that's a big “if,” that I'm not entirely sure about, maybe destroying a horcurx is similiar to creating one. The people who think Harry is a horcurx sometimes point out that Voldemort might have been trying to make one that night at Godric's Hollow, because the AK didn't act like a normal AK. No other AK we've seen causes an explosion, like at Godric's Hollow, or lifts someone up and throws them like on the tower. In both instances, the AK acted differently than we were led to expect it to.

This requires more thought...

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


wynnleaf - Feb 4, 2007 8:03 pm (#1319 of 1629)

Die Zimtzicke,
that is a very interesting comparison. Whether or not LV actually created a horcrux that night (Harry's scar?), he may have been attempting one with that particular AK -- the one that backfired. And you're right, that the effect produced seems to be different from the usual AK in that the house ended up in ruins. Although, we don't really know whether the ruined house was a result of the backfiring AK, or something else.

Still, it's interesting that both AKs at baby Harry and at Dumbledore acted somewhat more explosively than we've seen other AK's that were directed at people.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 5, 2007 3:41 am (#1320 of 1629)

The "odd" AK was cast by Snape. Another "odd" acting spell also has Snape in common:

Both of them swung their wands above their heads and pointed them at their opponent; Snape cried: "Expelliarmus!" There was a dazzling flash of scarlet light and Lockhart was blasted off his feet: He flew backward of the stage, smashed into the wall, and slid down it to sprawl on the floor.-- (CoS,Ch 11, "The Dueling Club")

It seems Snape causes the odd throwback effect.

Theories of Dumbledore and Snape attempting to fake Dumbledore's death depend on the possibility of being able to fake your way through an Unbreakable Vow. We don't know that can't be done. If the fulfilling of the Vow is determined by the bonder (Bella) or the person to whom the Vow is made (Narcissa), then it would be possible to deceive them and therefore avoid death. If that was a possibility, DD and Snape could work together to plan a faked death.—wynnleaf

I guess we just have different opinions on how magical contracts work. I'm taking Ron's description literally, because I have to. For any theory to work for me, personally, it has to fit the facts as we know them, not as they might be altered in the future. I just can't accept that the Unbreakable Vow is a magic contract so easily circumvented. Since Snape took a magic Vow, I think the magic knows when it is fulfilled.

The idea that Snape could be aiming (and hitting) a small object under Dumbledore's cloak may not be so far-fetched. If it was a horcrux, it could be that Snape could sense Voldemort's magic, or his partial soul, in the same way that we're speculating that DD should have been able to sense whether or not it was in the locket. So it could be that Snape could aim not at some guesstimate of where he imagined an unseen object must be, but at a magical signature that he could sense in the same way Dumbledore senses magical signatures.

I find it implausible that Snape could burst onto that scene, and in a mere moment of taking it in, could pinpoint a small, unseen horcrux under Dumbledore's robe and strike it with accuracy. If Snape is that good, no wonder Dumbledore was expendable! And Harry, too, for that matter. Who needs them to hunt for Horcruxes if you've got Snape?

I just don't see any sign that Snape could sense a magic signature as Dumbledore could do, or that Snape was even trying to. (Edit: I should probably say instead that a wizard who is powerful enough and trained could see magical signatures as Dumbledore could, but their is still no evidence that Snape was doing so, and I find it implausible that he could see the locket in a mere moment. I need to go find the part of HBP where Dumbledore is looking for magical traces....)

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


wynnleaf - Feb 5, 2007 5:06 am (#1321 of 1629)

I guess we just have different opinions on how magical contracts work. I'm taking Ron's description literally, because I have to. For any theory to work for me, personally, it has to fit the facts as we know them, not as they might be altered in the future. I just can't accept that the Unbreakable Vow is a magic contract so easily circumvented. Since Snape took a magic Vow, I think the magic knows when it is fulfilled.

I know the "what makes the Vow work" problem has been discussed a lot on many threads. But one thing for sure, Ron doesn't say how it works. "I just can't accept that the Unbreakable Vow is a magic contract so easily circumvented." Well, okay. But we don't know do we? Ron says if you break it you die. Fine. But he doesn't explain anything about when, how, etc. If you just solely go on Ron's comments, then why didn't Snape die the first time Draco "failed" to kill DD? Or the second time he failed? Sure, we can come up with reasons for why the Vow hadn't supposedly really be broken yet. But the point is, we only have Ron's statement and it doesn't cover all the facts of how the Vow works, so we don't know.

I find it implausible that Snape could burst onto that scene, and in a mere moment of taking it in could pinpoint a small unseen horcrux under Dumbledore's robe and strike it with accuracy.

Yes, it does seem a bit implausible right now. On the other hand, JKR has explained away some other things that, if we'd thought of them before hand, might have seemed implausible.

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


Luna Logic - Feb 5, 2007 5:15 am (#1322 of 1629)

Mrs Brisbee, I just happen to post that in the Why did Dumbledore have James's cloak? thread : “I was re reading The Cave episode, and I think it is a very important clue to Dumbledore penetration in those matters : "Magic always leaves traces", said Dumbledore (...), "sometimes very distinctive traces. I taught Tom Riddle. I know his style." (p. 527 Bloomsbury)

Now, your argument about the Vow is very strong! I just may say : - The use of legillimency was suspected above in the thread. - And, after drinking the potion in the Cave, could it be possible that DD knew he would die anyway (or something worse, that is what I suspect)? And, more, to die also, if he knew the “blast” of the AK (on the horcrux) would be deadly too ? So, technically, the killer would be Snape, yes… (I’m trying hard !)

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 5, 2007 5:53 am (#1323 of 1629)

Thank you for that quote, Luna Logic. Here's more:

“Dumbledore approached the wall of the cave and caressed it with his blackened fingertips, murmuring words in a strange tongue that Harry did not understand. Twice Dumbledore walked right around the cave, touching as much of the rough rock as he could, occasionally pausing, running his fingers backward and forward over a particular spot, until finally he stopped, his hand pressed flat against the wall.”-- (HBP, Ch 26, "The Cave")

It takes Dumbledore some time and concentration to detect the traces of magic.

And later in the cave, more detecting:

This time he was running his hand, not over the rocky wall, but through thin air, as though expecting to find and grip something invisible

“Oho,” said Dumbledore happily, seconds later. His hand had closed in midair upon something Harry could not see. --(HBP, Ch 26, "The Cave)

This one is interesting because Dumbledore is detecting an unseen object: the chain to the boat. Note that he doesn't detect that there is something there until he is upon it, and it takes a few seconds of groping around to catch the invisible chain. In no way does he know precisely where it is from across the room.

Here's Snape on the Tower:

Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore...-- (HBP, Ch 27, "The Lightening-Struck Tower)

That's the best we get. No groping around, no touching the magic with his fingers. It is altogether different from what Dumbledore was doing.

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


Luna Logic - Feb 5, 2007 6:16 am (#1324 of 1629)

Mrs Brisbee : ” Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore...-- (HBP, Ch 27, "The Lightening-Struck Tower) That's the best we get. No groping around, no touching the magic with his fingers. It is altogether different from what Dumbledore was doing. “ Yes, I agree. Very different indeed ! No going further, in canon…

But there is still the option of legillimency, with JKR’s hint of “Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore”. Hint of an exchange between Snape and Dumbledore,what about?

Oh, another hint, canon also, Madam Pomfrey’s remark #1314: ”I would really like to know why Dumbledore was clutching his chest because I think it is a clue rather than his having chest pain or some other ailment.”

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


Laura W - Feb 5, 2007 6:20 am (#1325 of 1629)

I guess we just have different opinions on how magical contracts work. I'm taking Ron's description literally, because I have to. For any theory to work for me, personally, it has to fit the facts as we know them, not as they might be altered in the future. I just can't accept that the Unbreakable Vow is a magic contract so easily circumvented. Since Snape took a magic Vow, I think the magic knows when it is fulfilled. (Mrs. Brisbee)

Mrs. Brisbee, here is *my* take on that:

I would certainly agree we do not know when the person dies or how they die, as we have not been given this information (deliberately); and we do not know how this applies to the specific Vow that Snape took, to the wording Narcissa used and to what Draco did or did not manage to accomplish regarding the task he was given by V.

But Ron does come from a wizarding family and, from the look of it, until he went to Hogwarts, had little or nothing to do with Muggles. His ignorance of the Muggle world is boundless. Or it was. But his knowledge of the laws, customs and practices of the WW would have been taught to him in his home from the time he was an infant - including the consequences of using certain spells and vows. That would be as elementary to a wizard child as being taught not to steal or not to touch a hot stove or to wash one's hands after going to the bathroom would be to a child brought up by caring parents in a Muggle home.

When Ron told Harry that you die if you break the Unbreakable Vow, he was giving him all the information Harry asked for.

(Ron): "Well, you can't break an Unbreakable Vow..."

(Harry): "... What happens if you break it, then?"

(Ron): "You die."

Harry never asked how you die, when you die, who kills you or anything else. It is very possible Ron would have been able to answer those questions – (but then we readers would have been given too much information, wouldn't we?) -, but Harry never asked. George and Fred "conveniently" entered the room at that exact moment. I cannot believe the meticulous Arthur would not have given his children all the details about the consequences of that Vow, in his role as a responsible wizard parent. Not at the age of five, of course, but as they got older. Ron is a few months short of 17 when he and Harry have this brief conversation.

Of course Jo isn't going to give us any more solid information than the tantalizing tidbit she leaked through the voice of the wizard-born, wizard-raised best friend of Harry. We know just enough: Snape took an Unbreakable Vow which, if he fails to fulfil, will result in his death. Period. And Jo used Ron to tell us and Harry just that little bit. Not necessarily because Ron did not know more details but because Jo did not want Ron to tell us any more.

Laura

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

edited to add, after reading next post --

Yes Tom, "The Answer" is "42". Ah, blessed agreement! (saucy grin)

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1326 to 1350

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 3:51 pm


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


TomProffitt - Feb 5, 2007 6:36 am (#1326 of 1629)

Not necessarily because Ron did not know more details but because Jo did not want Ron to tell us any more. --- Laura W

Exactly, Laura, this is the way Jo works. We have enough information to move the plot, but not so much as to give away its next twist or its conclusion.

I have no idea myself what happened exactly on that Tower, but I'm certain that it wasn't all it appeared to be on the surface. There are a lot of ideas out there to explain it all. Some of these ideas are pretty good, some are more interesting than probable, and some I just can't accept at all.

But the thing is, we haven't been given enough information to accurately predict what is going to happen next. There are some things that could happen that I wouldn't find to be a tremendous surprise, but no one has yet convinced me that they have "The Answer." (Which is "42")

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


wynnleaf - Feb 5, 2007 10:00 am (#1327 of 1629)

Of course Jo isn't going to give us any more solid information than the tantalizing tidbit she leaked through the voice of the wizard-born, wizard-raised best friend of Harry. We know just enough: Snape took an Unbreakable Vow which, if he fails to fulfil, will result in his death. Period. And Jo used Ron to tell us and Harry just that little bit. Not necessarily because Ron did not know more details but because Jo did not want Ron to tell us any more. (Laura)

I agree with Tom on this one. JKR told us, through Ron, only as much as she wanted us to know. That's why we don't get to find out how the penalty of the Vow is activated, what the point of the bonder is, how it's decided when the Vow is fulfilled or not, etc. So we don't know any more than Ron said. Therefore we don't know when, why or how the Vow takes effect. Sorry, Ron just didn't tell us, nor did JKR through him.

So theories about ways Snape and Dumbledore could have worked around the Vow aren't in opposition to Ron's statement. They're just taking advantage of all that JKR didn't tell us through Ron. One can take Ron completely at his word and still speculate on ways to circumvent the outcome, because Ron didn't tell us how it worked.

If JKR didn't want us to know any more, it would be for a reason, right? Which would imply she wanted to keep something hidden.

As regards Snape AKing the locket horcrux, the more I think about this one the more I don't think it works. It's just too hard to come up with ways Dumbledore would have two lockets on his person at the time, or how Snape could plan to AK only the locket.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Feb 5, 2007 3:36 pm (#1328 of 1629)

I remain hanging on to locket as "golden shield" speculation... but in the meantime, I find it interesting in PoA when Harry fell off his broom DD slowed Harry's fall. DD could have done this in Tower scene. We have no mention of what occurred as DD was suspended before the fall. What if he nonverbally commanded "Accio Wand" - then slowed his fall. I believe he did not die from the AK nor the fall but that the potion eventually killed him, after the fall.

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


MickeyCee3948 - Feb 5, 2007 4:51 pm (#1329 of 1629)

A wild thought. If Draco was supposed to off Dumbledore on Voldemort's orders as the DE's on the tower insinuated. He didn't/couldn't so if Voldemort wants to punish him inspite of the fact that Dumbledore is dead.

Will Snape have to protect Draco from Voldemort in order to fulfill the vow?

Mickey

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


journeymom - Feb 5, 2007 7:18 pm (#1330 of 1629)

Me and my, If the potion killed Dd then Harry is guilty of murder (or manslaughter).

Will Snape have to protect Draco from Voldemort? Sounds like it. That's an interesting prospect. Or maybe he'll keep Draco in hiding.

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


mona amon - Feb 5, 2007 7:32 pm (#1331 of 1629)

The vow only requires Snape to watch over Draco and protect him from any task related dangers, though clause #2 is a little ambiguous "and will you to the best of your ability,protect him from harm?" What harm? Until when?

If intent matters, I do not think Snape has to protect Draco from LV, because the thought that LV might punish Draco never seems to have entered Narcissa's head. She never seems to consider the possibility that Draco might fail to do the task,and yet survive.

While I do not suppose Snape was required by the vow to protect Draco from LV,I like to think that he does this anyway.He could have hidden Draco and Narcissa according to some prearranged plan of DD's,immediately after disapparating from outside Hogwarts,and then apparated to wherever LV was.

Edit:Cross posted with Journeymom.

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


Laura W - Feb 5, 2007 11:00 pm (#1332 of 1629)

wynnleaf wrote; "I agree with Tom on this one."

Tom had written: "Exactly, Laura, this is the way Jo works." after quoting something I had written.


If you agree with Tom, you are agreeing with someone who agrees with me. Ergo, you are agreeing with me. Tom just added his approval of what I said. Of course, I realize you would rather be hit by a thousand Bat-Bogey Hexes than ever say I was correct about anything or admit publicly that you agree with me about anything, wynnleaf. (grin) Guess that is just something I will have to accept.

Laura

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


wynnleaf - Feb 6, 2007 6:15 am (#1333 of 1629)

To be honest Laura, I wasn't sure that you really meant your comment the way it came across, but I was pretty sure Tom meant his the way it came out -- so I said I agreed with Tom, but didn't say I agreed with you.

I didn't think you were being intentionally confusing. I just mean that I didn't think you were really advocating the same thing as Tom, in fact sort of the opposite, so I wasn't sure that you indeed thought the following (as I believe Tom does -- correct me if I'm wrong Tom):

JKR had Ron tell Harry only as much about the Vow as she wants Harry to know -- at least at the time. At the same time she was allowing the reader to know only as much about the Vow as she wanted us to know at the time. She did this for her own purposes in advancing the plot and leading the reader. This however, does not mean that Ron gave Harry or us all the information available about the Vow. If there are possible caveats, exceptions, or what-have-you, we don't know them yet. We don't know them yet, not because they don't exist, but because JKR only wanted Harry and the reader to learn certain things at this time.

What that means to me is that we can theorize about how the Vow is enforced, when it's completed, if it can be tricked, etc., to our heart's content, because JKR hasn't given either Harry or us, through Ron, that information. She only gave us what she wanted us and Harry to know.

My interpretation of what you have said in the past, Laura, is that you think JKR had Ron tell Harry all that is pertinent for us to know, and that because Ron knows all that there is to know about the Vow (even if he doesn't tell Harry) his comments rule out any possibility of caveats, exceptions, or ways to trick the Vow. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

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


]frogface - Feb 6, 2007 6:52 am (#1334 of 1629)

I had an idea today about how Snape could have AK'd Dumbledore without actually killing him. I think Dumbledore orchestrated his own death and he wanted Snape to look guilty so that Harry would have an ally in Voldy's camp. I remembered that Fred and George were selling special shield hats, gloves and cloaks in their new shops. I also remembered that Dumbledore told Harry about the "love room". In the Ministry of Magic. We know that the only known magical defense of an AK is love. What if Dumbledore thought of combining the two? So that he somehow harnessed the room's power into a piece of clothing. Could this have blocked the A.K? I realise the theory has a couple of holes - That the fall killing Dumbledore was still technically caused by Snape and therefore could possibly damage his soul, which I'm sure Dumbledore wouldn't want. Also when an A.K is blocked by a physical object it rebounds, instead of being adsorbed into an object. We saw that the A.K went into DD's chest. And we know when Voldy A.K'd Harry the spell was reflected back by Lily's sacrifice. So I realise my theory is far from fool proof. But I just thought I'd throw it out there to see what people think.

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


TomProffitt - Feb 6, 2007 7:45 am (#1335 of 1629)

... as I believe Tom does -- correct me if I'm wrong Tom. --- wynnleaf

Yes, wynnleaf, you had my view correct.

In my view Jo tells us what we need to know to advance the plot. We don't know the specifics of how the Vow works, that was not necessary at that point in the story. These specifics may (or may not) be significant in the future.

I try to never assume that we have all of the information that we will eventually need to figure out the plot. Jo pretty much always gives big hints about things to come (DD's chocolate frog card & Quirrel at Diagon Alley, Ginny's recurring issues in COS, Sirius in dog form in Surrey, Mad Eye and his prowler, etc), but she rarely explains them fully until too late for us to figure it our completely.

So, when I look for clues I tend to discount things which are too subtle (like the Snape-Lily connection) and latch on to the more obvious (the locket and the music box in Grimauld Place)(the leaping inferi following the accio is another good one).

What that means for me on this thread, is that we've learned enough to advance the plot into Book 7, but I don't think that we have everything we need to solve the puzzle. We can make some pretty good guesses, but that's all they will be, guesses. There isn't enough evidence to prove anything.

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 6, 2007 3:14 pm (#1336 of 1629)

Alright can we have a group hug now?

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


Choices - Feb 6, 2007 4:22 pm (#1337 of 1629)

What the heck, why not........{{{HUGS}}}

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


wynnleaf - Feb 6, 2007 6:39 pm (#1338 of 1629)

Awh guys! {{many hugs}}

Laura, think you can forgive me for agreeing and disagreeing all in one breath?

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 6, 2007 7:12 pm (#1339 of 1629)

There now doesn't that feel better? Now Wynnleaf, I have a dangerous mission for you. Laura, I need a spy again, are you up for it? Or whatever Dumbledore told Snape and Sirius. HEE HEE.

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


Luna Logic - Feb 8, 2007 3:08 am (#1340 of 1629)
Edited by Feb 8, 2007 3:10 am

Hello ! I found this today in Odin-worship, Round Pink Spider #45, in a discussion about Amycus and Alecto, the DE’s who where sent to the Tower, and I think it may add interesting views about Dumbledore's death (and past) :

Round Pink Spider: “I have no doubt that LV had his reasons for sending whom he did, and that those DEs were meant to kill DD if Draco didn't, and if Snape backed down (LV may not have known about Snape's Vow).”

I will post the following of RPS’ citation in the Dumbledore thread (it’s about Dumbledore’s past.)

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


me and my shadow 813 - Feb 8, 2007 1:11 pm (#1341 of 1629)

Me and my, If the potion killed Dd then Harry is guilty of murder (or manslaughter). – journeymom

Good day, Miss Cooking Sherry. I've been thinking since DD had Harry take the equivalent of a Light Arts Unbreakable Vow (see earlier post from a few days ago) I don't feel Harry would be guilty. I'm sure DD would have left behind proof of Harry's following DD's orders or speak up via portrait. Any thoughts? Accurately yours,

me and my shadow 813 Wink

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


MickeyCee3948 - Feb 8, 2007 3:09 pm (#1342 of 1629)

There has to be knowledge that what you are doing would bring about the death of a person to be guilty of murder or manslaughter. Harry didn't know what forcing DD to drink the potion would do. Dumbledore didn't tell him it would kill him.

I believe that Harry would be innocent in any court if tried. With or without any orders from Dumbledore even being considered. After all there were no witnesses. No one was there to witness what happen! Except the inferi!

No the only one who will have to bear the knowledge of what happen is Harry.

Mickey

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


Soul Search - Feb 8, 2007 6:00 pm (#1343 of 1629)

Harry was there. If it is revealed that the potion killed Dumbledore, Harry will punish himself.

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


MickeyCee3948 - Feb 8, 2007 7:26 pm (#1344 of 1629)

He will punish himself for Dumbledore's death for a long long time with or without hte knowledge that the potion killed him.

Mickey

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


wynnleaf - Feb 8, 2007 8:25 pm (#1345 of 1629)

Harry has really avoided looking at his part in Sirius' death. Of course, Harry didn't kill Sirius, but it was his mistake that led Sirius to the MOM, where he died. Harry works very hard to focus on blaming Snape, in part, I think to keep from addressing any guilt he may personally feel.

I think Harry is already dealing with guilt. If he finds that Dumbledore died because of the Cave poisons, that's going to make it, in my opinion, unrealistic for him to just "deal with" and not avoid a major emotional backlash from it.

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


journeymom - Feb 8, 2007 10:18 pm (#1346 of 1629)

Harry immediately blamed himself for Sirius's death, but Dumbledore said it was his own fault, partly. Not Harry's fault at all. Harry probably didn't want to stay angry at Dumbledore forever. He never assigns Dumbledore blame for Sirius's death, even though Dumbledore did. Yes, it's definitly easier to blame Snape for it.

I can hardly wait for DH to see if Harry has been contemplating his part in the events of the night of Dumbledore's death.

Sorry! I don't mean that to sound like I can hardly wait to see Harry marinating in guilt. But it's intriguing that the words 'hatred' and 'revulsion' were used to describe both Harry and Snape and I can hardly wait to see if anything comes of that.

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


Laura W - Feb 9, 2007 12:49 am (#1347 of 1629)

Ready for this? ...

wynnleaf, I agree with every word you wrote in your post #1345.

Laura

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 9, 2007 6:32 am (#1348 of 1629)

Alert the Media!!!! Get a film crew to Toronto!!!! Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 1003735042
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


wynnleaf - Feb 9, 2007 7:14 am (#1349 of 1629)

Well, it was a short post. Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 464751818

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 9, 2007 7:34 am (#1350 of 1629)

Also newsworthy,Smile Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 2775603007


Last edited by Lady Arabella on Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1351 to 1375

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 3:57 pm


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


journeymom - Feb 9, 2007 9:17 am (#1351 of 1629)

Thom, you're just full of zingers today!

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 9, 2007 9:56 am (#1352 of 1629)

For all those that have been zinged, please forgive or retailiate. I don't know what has gotten into me today.

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


Laura W - Feb 10, 2007 9:11 am (#1353 of 1629)

Harry has really avoided looking at his part in Sirius' death. Of course, Harry didn't kill Sirius, but it was his mistake that led Sirius to the MOM, where he died. Harry works very hard to focus on blaming Snape, in part, I think to keep from addressing any guilt he may personally feel. I think Harry is already dealing with guilt. If he finds that Dumbledore died because of the Cave poisons, that's going to make it, in my opinion, unrealistic for him to just deal with" and not avoid a major emotional backlash from it." (wynnleaf)

And then there is Cedric Diggory. Although both Cho Chang and the Diggory parents did not blame Harry for what happened to Cedric, the young man *did* die because Harry - for the best of motives - insisted that both he and Cedric grab the Triwizard Cup. I think he still feels a bit responsible although he tries to push that guilt way to the back of his consciousness.

That is three good people who have died because Harry Potter tried to do the honourable and unselfish thing, but in *each* case - assuming the green potion he fed to DD killed DD (which we do not know at this point) -, that honourable unselfish act backfired.

Imagine what it might be like to live with that knowledge, day in and day out (on top of constantly being aware that the most powerful Dark Wizard in the world is gunning for you). It really is a wonder that the kid hasn't emotionally cracked up long before now.

Laura

remember cedric diggory!

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


wynnleaf - Feb 10, 2007 10:03 am (#1354 of 1629)

Yeah, I agree. And I know we're getting off-topic here, but I'll just add this last thing: if JKR has more people on the good side die because of something Harry got them into (even if it's not really his fault), that just lays more and more guilt at his door.

Back to Dumbledore's death and how this relates. I'm not sure how much guilt JKR wants to place on Harry (even if unwarranted). I'd guess that the last book will have at least one character on the good side die while helping Harry out with something or another. So it seems like we're getting a character per book since GOF, who Harry gets to feel more guilt about.

For many reasons, I tend to think that in book 7 we'll discover that Snape did not actually kill DD -- either from the AK or the fall from the tower. But that doesn't mean that we'll necessarily have Harry get the blame for the killing "blow" (administering the cave potions).

The very strong correlations that JKR drew between Snape and Harry -- both having the "hatred" and "revulsion" feelings, both pushed by Dumbledore to keep an agreement they made -- makes me think that to whatever extent one was responsible for DD's death, the other is also. So either they both did things on DD's orders that contributed to his death, or both did things which appear to contribute to his death, but really didn't.

My guess is that JKR has orchestrated DD's death completely differently from what seems readily apparent. I think there's lots of clues to that in what I think are various inconsistencies surrounding the evening.

Part of the problem for me is that I think most of the books, themes, and much of the evidence points toward Snape remaining loyal to DD. But if Snape is loyal to DD, and killed him outright on the tower, then JKR has set up a very difficult ethical situation, as has been discussed on the "Avada Kedavra and morality of killing" thread. If JKR has done this, then ultimately she has to make a case for the "rightness" of it in order to convince both Harry and the reader that AKing DD was the right thing to do. And I think that's too big an ethical mess to tackle -- I don't think she'd want to do that.

I suspect that although she has left us what appears to be a huge ethical quandary, she will show us in Book 7 how she gets completely around it.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Feb 10, 2007 11:31 am (#1355 of 1629)

I just realised that, contrary to what I posted several days ago about the gold statue shattering when hit with the AK, it did not.

In OoP it says an AK hit a statue in the chest with no consequence. Later on there is a curse that shatters the centaur, I believe, but it is not stated whether or not it was an AK, just that it was green.

As far as how Snape could know the locket was in place, I maintain it was good ol'Legilimency. Any thoughts?

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


Luna Logic - Feb 10, 2007 2:02 pm (#1356 of 1629)

I agree, me and my shadow, there was a use of Legilimency on the Tower.
“Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.”

As Dumbledore could not speak openly, Snape might have used his skill to read some of Dumbledore thoughts, just before the end of Dumbledore. How crucial thoughts, then!
Were they about the Vow and Dumbledore's death to come?
Were they about the future protection of Harry, or Draco, or both?
Were they about Horcruxes' quest? And the locket, false, real, or about RAB...

What sort of asking from DD could cause to Snape "revulsion and hatred"?

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


Ag Hart - Feb 10, 2007 10:08 pm (#1357 of 1629)

Most of us agree that much more was occurring on top of the tower than was obvious. As I've noted on the DD thread, it's good to see JKR acknowledge the complexity of his death and/or Dumbledore's role in the next book (TLC News). Serves her right if Dumbledore gave her problems in DH. That's what she gets for breaking our hearts. LOL

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


wynnleaf - Feb 11, 2007 8:56 am (#1358 of 1629)

Ag Hart, I saw your post early this morning and went to The Leaky Cauldron to check it out. Of course, it's not canon, because we only have Dan's report of what JKR said. That is, we don't have her exact words in a formal interview. However, it's obvious that her comments struck him as interesting and it sounds like, since she only said a few words about it, that he's probably got her comments fairly accurate.

Dan's comments as quote on TLC are:

'Jo came down to the set at one point and I said, "Oh hello, why are you here today?" And she said, "Oh I just needed a break from the book - Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble." And I said, "But isn't he dead?" And she said, "Well, yeah, but it's more complex ..." I was like, [briskly] "OK, I'm not gonna ask anything else!"'

So.... does this give anyone who considered DD's death totally cut and dried -- he's completely dead and there's nothing peculiar or unusual about it -- any pause? Is this a clue that maybe DD's death isn't exactly as it seemed in HBP?

Obviously, I think it does add another clue that DD's "death" wasn't all it appeared. But what about others?

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 11, 2007 9:03 am (#1359 of 1629)

Dumbledore was a man with a finger in every pie. His death will effect many things in the wizard world, and his secret plots could leave much "trouble" for those trying to sort things out after his death (edit: including Rowling, who is the one who ultimately must sort everything out, and who is the one for whom Dumbledore is causing trouble). So I don't see that what Rowling said relates to his death so much as the aftermath.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 11, 2007 9:18 am (#1360 of 1629)

Well, except that apparently, however she exactly worded it, JKR's comment that "Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble," didn't sound to Dan (or me for that matter) like she was talking about a complex scheme that Dumbledore had left behind, but the character himself. Certainly, Dan took it that way, and his follow-up question to her made it clear to her that he questioned how DD could be dead and yet giving her a lot of trouble in Book 7. And her answer, "well, yeah, but it's more complex..." just doesn't sound like she was in any way denying that the actual character of Dumbledore had something to do with Book 7. Further the "it's more complex..." means what? He's dead, but it's more complex than that... It just sounded to me like Dan took it as DD's death itself was what was "more complex" and somehow resulted in the character's ability to cause JKR problems in DH.

Also, the "well, yeah," if she actually said those exact words, just sounds a bit, I don't know, like someone who's basically acknowledging that yeah, she said he was dead before, but it's more complex...

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


Ag Hart - Feb 11, 2007 11:34 am (#1361 of 1629)

JKR's remarks confirmed for me what I'd already thought. Dumbledore is dead but not gone, and he will continue to play a major role in DH.

There is also all that information about Dumbledore that she needed to work into the storyline. From comments she made in past interviews, we know that we can expect info about DD's family to be worked into the story and perhaps Fawkes, as she also seemed to hint that he would have a role in DH. That would add to the complexity of the writing, but her "complex" comment, at least, as reported by Dan, does suggest that she is speaking of Dumbledore himself.

I don't know what is complex, but her comment certainly seems to indicate that Dumbledore's role will be a significant part of the story. I'm hoping that means that he will be much, much more than just Harry's inspiration. All that intense energy Dumbledore radiated must be somewhere. Wink I hope, I hope. ....Ag

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 11, 2007 3:31 pm (#1362 of 1629)

It sort of says two things for me.

1. That his death was not planned that night as so many have speculated and is intricate for her to cover the tracks of all the concerned characters. Draco, Harry, Snape, even McGonnagal.

2. Getting clues to Harry for the other Horcruxes as he will have to be either in the Heads office or near his pensieve could place a delicate bit of writting in front of her. How to get Harry there and setting up the scenes to do so, could be tough.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Feb 11, 2007 3:59 pm (#1363 of 1629)

He's dead but he could have left memories behind, or she could be referring to his portrait, or some problem that occurred in the aftermath of his death. She does say again that he's dead. Maybe he is trying to find a way to communicate through the veil?

Once again she's told someone something without telling anyone enough to formulate a good, solid, indisputable theory with.

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


MickeyCee3948 - Feb 11, 2007 5:07 pm (#1364 of 1629)

Yeah, like Dan would have blurted something out that was major to the plot line. I think NOT.

Mickey

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


Madame Pomfrey - Feb 11, 2007 7:39 pm (#1365 of 1629)

Thanks for quoting that,Wynnleaf. It saved me the trouble of looking up TLC. What I hope it means is that she is having trouble bringing Dumbledore back!!

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


Ag Hart - Feb 11, 2007 11:11 pm (#1366 of 1629)

Madame Pomfrey-- She did say earlier that she wouldn't pull a Gandolf, so don't get your hopes too high. Perhaps his next "great adventure" is in another form.

At least, Dan didn't say that Jo would grant his wish --a great death scene. Smile (That's one bit of info we can be sure that she wouldn't reveal-- no matter what.)

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


Laura W - Feb 12, 2007 12:16 am (#1367 of 1629)

Re Dumbledore:

Boy, some of you guys just cannot accept that he is dead. Really and truly dead. Jo told us that during the Q&A at Radio City Music Hall on Aug. 1 - although I was always a member of the Dumbledore is Dead club (that's ONE I've got right - grin). I am very sympathetic to those of you who are grasping at straws. Honestly. I know all about denial and grief and all that. Nonetheless, he is not going to come back in any corporeal way. She even reiterates that in the conversation between Harry and Rufus at DD's funeral.

Her comment to Mr. Radcliffe could mean that she is having trouble with Dumbledore's story. That is, with the section or sections of DH which will deal with him: either with his history (ie - maybe connected with James and Lily, or Grindelwald), or the exact details of the incident of what really happened in the Cave and on the Astronomy Tower, or the part DD will play in Harry searching out and destroying the Horcruxes and Voldemort (ie - some information he left Harry in either a Pensieve or elsewhere).

That's how I see it, anyway.

Laura

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


Luna Logic - Feb 12, 2007 1:15 am (#1368 of 1629)
Edited by Feb 12, 2007 1:32 am

Laura W "Her comment to Mr. Radcliffe could mean that she is having trouble with Dumbledore's story. That is, with the section or sections of DH which will deal with him: either with his history (ie - maybe connected with James and Lily, or Grindelwald), or the exact details of the incident of what really happened in the Cave and on the Astronomy Tower, or the part DD will play in Harry searching out and destroying the Horcruxes and Voldemort"

As I agree with Laura, I think what is left to search about Dumbledore's death is "What?" : What has really killed him ? Linked then with When and Who.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 12, 2007 6:04 am (#1369 of 1629)

Boy, some of you guys just cannot accept that he is dead. Really and truly dead. Jo told us that during the Q&A at Radio City Music Hall on Aug. 1 - although I was always a member of the Dumbledore is Dead club (that's ONE I've got right - grin). I am very sympathetic to those of you who are grasping at straws. Honestly. I know all about denial and grief and all that. (Laura)

Maybe some of us need to have a disclaimer at the top of each post on the thread:

Not In Grief Over Dumbledore. Not in "Denial." Simply looking carefully at clues and doesn't believe everything at face value.

Honestly, plenty of people have tried to make that clear and I have yet to see anyone on this thread who thinks Dumbledore didn't die on the tower, come across as grieving or in denial. People are looking at many different kinds of clues and coming up with theories to explain them.

I for one, and as I recall several others on this thread, have stated that when we first heard the DD would die in HBP (before the book came out), and after first reading HBP, we weren't upset at all by it. It was purely what we saw as clues and evidence that caused us to think there was more going on.

JKR has stated that Dumbledore wouldn't do a Gandalf. Okay. No one is suggesting he will. But there's a lot more going on at the end of HBP than what meets the eye -- I'd bet practically anything on it. And I am in no way sure that DD died on (or below) the tower. In any case, if he did die at that time, I don't think it was a straightforward death -- that is, killed directly by an AK.

When JKR said that Dumbledore was giving her trouble, it did not seem to strike Daniel Radcliffe that she was just talking about the plot situations caused by his death, or explaining his death -- otherwise, Dan wouldn't have felt compelled to question yet again, in spite of those Radio City Music Hall comments, "but isn't he dead?" Further, after he asked her that, JKR's answer, which could possibly mean nothing, was nevertheless phrased in a classic prevarication phrasing, "well, yeah, but..." "Well, yeah, but.." doesn't necessarily indicate anything suspicious, but like I said, it's a classic thing to say when you're about to prevaricate, equivocate, or otherwise try to skirt the truth. "well, yeah, but it's more complex..." And what was she answering "it's more complex.." about? She was answering the question about whether he was dead.

So, while the exchange of comments could mean little to nothing, they strike me as right in line with many of the other roundabout things JKR has said about DD's death. Even the night of her Radio City Music Hall comments (the second night), she gave one answer that said that we'd find out in Book 7 if he was one of the two extra characters to die in book 7. If that's not an odd thing to say about a character that she supposedly killed and buried in the most obvious way in the previous book, I don't know what is.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 12, 2007 6:48 am (#1370 of 1629)

'Jo came down to the set at one point and I said, "Oh hello, why are you here today?" And she said, "Oh I just needed a break from the book - Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble." And I said, "But isn't he dead?" And she said, "Well, yeah, but it's more complex ..." I was like, [briskly] "OK, I'm not gonna ask anything else!"'

It sounds to me like Dan was saying that a dead character should simplify things, and Rowling was saying no, his being dead doesn't simplify things. I don't find that surprising. Dumbledore was a complex man, with complex plans, and he might be gone but he's not forgotten. I think the exchange between Dan and Rowling is way too unspecific to build anything out of it.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Feb 12, 2007 7:32 am (#1371 of 1629)

Thanks , Wynnleaf. You explained my feelings on the subject better than I ever could and I totally agree with everything you have said. I did grieve for Dumbledore initially.I knew he would die before I read the book and have no problem with his being dead,but I do have a problem with all the unanswered questions and clues stated at the beginning and throughout this thread.

Exactly when did Jo tell Dan this? Was it right before she finished the book or earlier?

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


Ag Hart - Feb 12, 2007 9:17 am (#1372 of 1629)

Madame Pomfrey -- Dan only mentions that JKR made the comment when she visited the OotP set during filming. I am beginning to be sorry that I ever mentioned the remarks, but for those of us who are major Dumbledore fans, I thought it might provide a glimmer of hope that he continues.

wynnleaf-- Although I have accepted DD's death since my first reading, I agree that there is much more to his death than is obvious. Some hints that something else lurks beneath the surface were apparent to me from the first reading and more and more clues appeared with additional readings -- especially those clues given prior to the death, which are better viewed in hindsight. JKR has successfully interwoven many clues throughout the book, not just the death and burial scenes. Some of the "clues" that you have painstakingly gathered (I applaud your diligence and critical judgment) I have written about extensively and in detail early on in the multiple DD threads. Others I take as examples of JKR's craft, her creation of pathos in a rather poetic fashion. I don't know if DD's death was part of a grand plan, part of a planned "just in case" scenario, or something else entirely, but I do believe it was Dumbledore's choice, especially in light of all the lectures he gave to Harry on that theme. I still am entertaining the idea that the death had a functional purpose, that it is a means to an end--not just JKR's, but Dumbledore's. The idea, as I have mentioned before, that the sacrificial death of a great wizard to save not only Harry, but Hogwarts, released some great power that will have a tangible magical effect (a counteraction to soul-ripping murder) intrigues me. Could it have the opposite effect of a ripped soul, a diffused spirit that might unite the four houses for a final battle? Could it empower Dumbledore to return in some new form --not human, not Gandolf-like? (Yes, there are some, not you, who still expect a physical awakening of the body or resurrection.) Might the sacrificial death have allowed Harry to absorb some of Dumbledore's powers as he once absorbed some of Voldemort's? Is it possible that Harry and those who are loyal to DD can plug into that radiating energy as described by JKR? Will Dumbledore's death provide something more than inspiration, some magical effect essential, not just to the book's theme, but the plot itself? Maybe not, but it is a lovely idea.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Feb 12, 2007 9:34 am (#1373 of 1629)

Maybe Jo has now realized how many problems the fans are having with the way she wrote that death and now is going to try to correct/explain some of them.

I hope so, anyway.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Feb 12, 2007 10:26 am (#1374 of 1629)

AG,Don't worry. We Potter sleuths will take anything the media has to offer.Even if it isn't meant to be a big deal it is so much fun to speculate.

Yes,Die.She has major questions to answer! I'll bet she had no idea what she was getting into when she started writing.We question her every word. Bless her,I bet she gets some humdinger headaches.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 12, 2007 10:48 am (#1375 of 1629)

Ag Hart,

I could see DD deciding, were it possible, to die some sacrificial death that would protect a lot of people. One big problem I have with Dumbledore actually orchestrating his death (as opposed to orchestrating faking his death), is if he required that Snape kill him. That just doesn't balance out with the sacrificial death idea.

A big problem for me is that I feel practically certain that Snape's on the good side. There's far more problems with the "evidence" if he's a bad guy, then there is if he's on the good side. But if Snape is loyal and delivered the killing blow to Dumbledore, this presents a huge ethical problem for me. I don't really consider it murder if killing Dumbledore was the only way to save both Harry and Draco, especially if DD was going to die anyway (if Snape defaulted on his Vow and immediately died, leaving DD wandless and facing the DEs). But even if such was the situation, it means that JKR orchestrated, intentionally, such a situation, and even possibly had her characters, in particularly DD, knowingly risk such a situation. And then she'd have to find some way in the 7th book to justify it -- how to explain to readers and Harry alike that Snape could kill DD in what appears to be cold blood (even if "necessary" cold blood), and somehow it's justified.

Since I think Snape is loyal, yet I highly doubt if JKR set up such a difficult moral problem, I don't think she had Snape directly kill DD.

With all those clues that point to something else going on, I feel that there's a lot of complexities, even about DD's actual death, that will need to be explained.

We Potter sleuths will take anything the media has to offer.Even if it isn't meant to be a big deal it is so much fun to speculate. (Madame Pomfrey)

Yes, and JKR so often has such interesting and confusing things to say, it's fun to try to figure her out by both her planned and chance comments.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1376 to 1400

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 4:01 pm


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


Laura W - Feb 12, 2007 11:26 am (#1376 of 1629)

Oh, I forgot ... thanks, Luna Logic.

LW

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


Luna Logic - Feb 12, 2007 11:49 am (#1377 of 1629)

Thanks too Laura. I had forgotten my post, because I was trying to follow the present discussion, which I quite don't understand. So I take the occasion to quote myself (bad manners )

As I agree with Laura, I think what is left to search about Dumbledore's death is “What" : What has really killed him ? Linked then with When and Who."

I will add today: why discuss only a possible moral dilemma?

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


Ag Hart - Feb 12, 2007 12:56 pm (#1378 of 1629)

I believe that Dumbledore's death was definitely sacrificial in that he died to save Harry. The time he took to freeze Harry, keep him hidden, prevented him from using his wand to save himself. He made a choice--a necessary component for the magic to occur. I also suspect he saved Draco from the wrath of Voldemort and from soul-ripping murder. If so, saving his enemy (someone who would do him ill), would add to the potency of the sacrifice. I don't necessarily mean that Dumbledore planned ahead for a sacrificial death, although perhaps those in the Order knew that if a choice must be made, Harry must be the one saved.

Sacrificial love, as exhibited by Harry's mother, has been a strong theme, and just as a sacrificial act began the saga, perhaps it has a role in completing it. Some posters have said that if love turns out to be the answer and solution to LV's defeat, they would be disappointed. I'm suggesting that a variation of the love theme, one centering on its sacrificial rather than its emotional element might render a more palatable conclusion. If JKR were to link this sacrificial death to a magical, tangible outcome, as she did before when Harry gained invulnerability from LV as a result of Lily's sacrifice (her choice), I think it would not only provide a concrete means to defeat Voldemort and add a satisfactory plot twist, but also raise Dumbledore's death from being one of ignominy to glory. This is of course an ending I would like, not necessarily one I expect to get. It would provide for all types of possibilities. It could help bring the houses together for their apocalyptic type battle, even engage the spirits of the Founders, who I expect are buried at Hogwarts, and maybe allow for a redeemed Draco to lead loyal Slytherins against LV's forces. I'm not arguing that I definitely think this is JKR's intended ending, but I thought it might give us another death-related angle to explore before the final book.

As far as Snape goes, I'm open to all possibilities, although I do believe that silent communication between DD and Snape was occurring. Snape may have been caught in a moral dilemma, but no matter what he did, someone else would have finished DD off. For one horrid moment, I thought it would be Fenrir and so was almost relieved when it was Snape. In that sense, Snape may have saved DD from a fate worse than death. (BTW, I believe that Snape's dilemma would have remained even if DD had not been hit with an AK or if it were somehow defused by a new and improved spell-repelling cloak from the twins' joke shop. Snape didn't seem to be in on the plan; he really was furious.)

I think it is fun to speculate about all possibilities, even if they aren't the ones most likely to occur. In doing so, some new, obvious, but not previously noticed, tidbit might be discovered and add to our musings.

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 12, 2007 1:09 pm (#1379 of 1629)

I OoP remember that DD took care of 5 at one time by himself in his own office. He also did it in the Dept. of Magic rounding up all the Death Eaters. Even being not so tip top he could have done something with Draco if he chose to me thinks.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 12, 2007 1:19 pm (#1380 of 1629)

I will add today: why discuss only a possible moral dilemma?

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear about where the moral dilemma comes from. Many of the posts in this thread are looking at what might have occurred if DD planned for at least some of the occurances that night. This is because so many of the clues lead many to believe that DD knew at least what might happen, and had possibly ordered Snape to AK him if such a situation arose (remember the conversation Hagrid overheard).

If DD planned to order Snape to kill him, that does present a major moral dilemma and one which JKR would have to address and explain in book 7.

If the events on the Tower were a complete surprise to DD and Snape, then perhaps Snape could have AK'd DD on the tower in a "self-defence" scenario where the only way to save Harry and Draco was to kill DD, and DD was going to die anyway if Snape broke the Vow, died, and left DD to face the DEs. But the problem here is that with DD's forest argument with Snape, DD's bringing a larger contingent of Order members to patrol that night, the way DD blatantly gave away is leaving Hogwarts that night, Snape's appearing to be waiting in his office, Snape's non-stop no-questions-asked run to the Tower, etc., there's lots of clues that perhaps DD did have an idea of what might occur that night and had planned for it, including some sort of instructions to Snape.

So that puts us right back at DD planning to sacrifice himself. I'm okay with DD thinking it would have to be either him or Snape, and deciding that his own death was the better choice. But if he actually planned for Snape to kill him, that's a major moral problem.

It all worked out rather nicely (as far as the moral questions go), when we thought the clues were leading us to think DD faked his death. Then you could have all those things that looked like he had planned for a lot of it, situated right alongside him ordering Snape to follow through, and it didn't turn into some major ethical problem of forcing a loyal follower to kill him.

That's part of the reason why I still wonder if DD actually attempted to fake his death, and perhaps the plan failed.

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


Luna Logic - Feb 12, 2007 2:00 pm (#1381 of 1629)

Thanks for your developments, Ag Hart and Wynnleaf.

Wynnleaf, I understand now the "major ethical problem of forcing a loyal follower to kill him" you had in mind.
I understand also the alternatives (or not? ):
1. Dumbledore and Snape had a plan to try to escape the Vow by faking DD's death; (and perhaps, it fails that night)
2. DD was planning to sacrifice himself;

I don't have set my mind about 1.- how to deceive a Vow, and all (but yes it fun to discuss all the alternatives of faking death !)
Concerning point 2. I do believe that DD was to die (potion effects) in some minutes, and was knowing it. When Snape enters, DD seizes a chance to save some other people. But he doesn't sacrify himself because he was to die very soon anyway.
Is there a moral dilemma left for you in that hypothesis? (so difficult to express myself about such subjects, sorry - I think Snape has already a major crime on his past, to expy somehow, and he accepts that).


Ag Hart: Snape may have saved DD from a fate worse than death I think so: but in my mind it was the fate induced by the Cave's potion.

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


TomProffitt - Feb 12, 2007 2:14 pm (#1382 of 1629)

To weigh in on the ethical dilemma potentials of the events surrounding Dumbledore's death I'd like to add the following:

There are four problems here for the author;

1) She has to do it in such a way that she is satisfied that the morally correct solution was arrived at.

2) She has to do it in such a way that the reader can understand and accept what she has done as being a morally correct solution.

3) She has to do it in such a way that Harry can accept it as a morally correct solution.

4) She has to do it in such a way that it doesn't conflict with the moral absolute she presented in PoA when her characters told Peter Pettigrew that he should have died rather than allow the Potters to die.

I haven't seen a theory yet that adequately answers all four of these problems, allows Snape to be a good guy, and allows Dumbledore to be truly dead. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying I haven't figured it out, yet.

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


Luna Logic - Feb 12, 2007 2:25 pm (#1383 of 1629)

WoW TomProffitt a post so logical! I'm figuring JKR at her desk, trying to write the "Tower" explanation for tome 7, counting on her fingers, problem 1, 2, 3, 4, then DD really dead, then Snape a good guy!

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


MickeyCee3948 - Feb 12, 2007 4:41 pm (#1384 of 1629)

Love the discussions today and can't find anything to disagree with or add to. Bravo!

Mickey

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 12, 2007 7:08 pm (#1385 of 1629)

I haven't seen a theory yet that adequately answers all four of these problems, allows Snape to be a good guy, and allows Dumbledore to be truly dead. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying I haven't figured it out, yet.—TomProffitt

That's where I'm at. Maybe Rowling has something up her sleeve, but it's going to have to be a doozy of a reveal to get everything to work.

My initial reaction reading HBP was that there must have been some plot afoot. I'd always taken Snape to be an immature jerk who nonetheless was working for the Good side, so him AKing Dumbledore came as a surprise. After doing a reread of HBP, I gave up on the idea that there was any sort of set up between Dumbledore and Snape. Evil Snape actually fits the facts the best, with fewest holes. There are still those few holes, like why did Dumbledore trust Snape anyway? but until I see something better I'm sticking with the Evil Snape scenario.

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


mona amon - Feb 13, 2007 4:57 am (#1386 of 1629)

Interesting post,TomProffit.

She has to do it in such a way that the reader can understand and accept what she has done as being a morally correct solution-[

She's really going to have a problem with that one! Almost anything to do with what is morally correct and what is not is bound to spark a debate. As long as she was able to solve problem #1, it’s ok with me.

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


TomProffitt - Feb 13, 2007 9:04 am (#1387 of 1629)

She has to do it in such a way that the reader can understand and accept what she has done as being a morally correct solution --- me

In today's fiction most writers don't worry about this concept a whole lot. JKR is a bit different, she's set a higher moral standard for her characters (Dumbledore in particular). It's really about not compromising the integrity of her characters.

There is so much that's happened that we don't fully understand that I don't think it will be hard for her to solve. I find that by trying to look at problems from the writer's point of view helps me to get a better grip on which theories make more sense than others.

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


mona amon - Feb 13, 2007 6:39 pm (#1388 of 1629)

Yes, but will she be able to find a solution that all her readers would accept as being the morally correct one? When she gives us an answer to 'how can DD be dead and Snape still a good guy', for instance, will all readers accept it, or will there be some, or even many, who feel that she has compromised the integrity of her characters?

There will definitly be a lack of consensus among her readers about any complex question .So that's why I feel it would be better for an author to solve the problem to her own satisfaction, andnot worry about the reader too much.

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


MickeyCee3948 - Feb 13, 2007 7:38 pm (#1389 of 1629)

That's the only solution mona amon, and since she thinks that DH is her best work then she probably solved the problem in her own way. She will NEVER make all of us happy.

Mickey

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


Mattew Bates - Feb 15, 2007 12:36 pm (#1390 of 1629)

I wanted to drop in my two knuts' worth on some previous comments as I caught up with the thread - Set the wayback machine, Sherman! Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 2752390508

* * * * * * *

Mrs Brisbee - Oct 8, 2006 8:44 pm (#212) ... 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

Well, some of them had just finished off Harry's Felix Felicis, so "pure chance" was tilted in favor of help arriving just in time that evening.


Elanor - Oct 9, 2006 11:54 am (#223)... Very good food for thought! And it makes me think of the destruction of thei]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? ...

Harry still has a pure, unmarred soul according to Dumbledore - and Harry destroyed the diary. So, destroying a horcrux does not count as murder.


Mrs Brisbee - Oct 18, 2006 10:45 am (#264) ... ... 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. ...

Perhaps symbolic that some of the mistakes Dumbledore made in life, "flaws in his vision," so to speak, Harry will correct after his death.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 18, 2006 12:17 pm (#266) ... But, if I was only looking at the symbolic stuff, I'd have to conclude Dumbledore messed up and Snape is evil.

That's exactly why I've come to that very conclusion.

wynnleaf - Oct 19, 2006 1:07 pm (#289) (whole post)

I think you're asking Occam's Razor to make a very jagged cut. Two possibilities to bear in mind:

# Snape could very well have seen the Dark Mark over the tower through a window on his way up from the dungeons, and headed straight up from there. If this was how Snape knew where to go, then he hadn't been tipped off by other Death Eaters, and thus could not have tipped off Dumbledore that they were coming. As to why there was no surprise among the other DE's when Snape arrived - Choices and haymoni covered my thoughts nicely in posts 1258 & 1259.

# Dumbledore, upon seeing the Dark Mark, understood that the tower was where Draco was setting a trap for him, and because his plan was to confront Malfoy, he went straight there. As you mentioned, sending Harry to get Snape may have been to assure that his confrontation with Draco went uninterrupted - also the reason why he petrified Harry when Draco was coming through the door. His statements about the safety of the castle before leaving for the cave make me think he did not expect Draco to succeed in getting Death Eaters inside the castle.

wynnleaf - Nov 20, 2006 12:24 pm (#889) What seems more likely to me is that DD told Fawkes previously to not get involved with any of the events that night.

That, in my opinion, strongly implies that DD was expecting, and therefore planning, to enter into life-and-death situations that night for which he did not want Fawkes' rescue.

I've never been a follower of the "Dumbledore planned/faked his own death" theories, but even I have to admit there is something conspicuous about Fawkes' absence from the tower that evening. Dumbledore wanted to Draco to have the chance to kill him (so Draco could realize that he lacked the will). Draco would not have a real chance to do that if Fawkes was on protection duty, so Dumbledore benched him for the evening. It was a gamble, in my opinion, and it paid off poorly.[/i]

Laura W - Nov 22, 2006 1:00 am (#895) It would be fascinating to know what the core and wood of Dumbledore's wand is, wouldn't it Deb!

However, we do know that the core is not phoenix feather. From PS, p.65 (Raincoast): "Mr. Ollivander fixed Harry with his pale stare. 'I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather - just one other. ...' "

While I have to agree with Mrs. Brisbee's post #908 about Priori Incantatum, there are other phoenixes who could have donated Dumbledore's wand core.

Madame Pomfrey- Jan 11, 2007 7:00 am (#1138) Whenever Harry mentioned his suspicions about Draco/Snape Dumbledore seemed to blow him off,IMO. He listened, but I don't think he believed or refused to believe.

Does anyone else think this or am I the only one?


I think this, as well.

T Vrana - Jan 30, 2007 6:50 pm (#1276) 1) The locket that was at #12 is the horcrux locket

2) The 'body' that jumped out of the lake in the cave in response to Harry's accio, was clutching the horcrux locket, or had the horcrux locket in a pocket

3) I had some further thoughts on that Inerius & horcruxes here.

[i]me and my shadow 813 - Feb 3, 2007 11:27 am (#1309) Then in the Cave:

Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the goblet back towards Dumbledore's mouth and tipped it...

And Severus on Tower:

...and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.


It seems, as has been stated many times, a parallel is being drawn between them with DD forcing a promise to do as he says.

The real question is whether or not JKR is writing this as a parallel, or is writing Snape as a foil to Harry.

wynnleaf - Feb 12, 2007 10:48 am (#1375) Since I think Snape is loyal, but I highly doubt if JKR set up such a difficult moral problem, I don't think she had Snape directly kill DD.

I agree that JKR is not setting up a moral dilemma on that scale, but I find Snape's loyalty far more in question than I find the method of Dumbledore's death.

B]Mrs Brisbee - Feb 12, 2007 7:08 pm (#1385) Evil Snape actually fits the facts the best, with fewest holes.

Once again, I'm with you, Mrs Brisbee.

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


Mattew Bates - Feb 15, 2007 12:38 pm (#1391 of 1629)

So, to follow up my Longest Post Ever™️, let me add a few ideas to the pot.

Dumbledore planned to convince Draco to enter the Wizard Protection Program™️ once he’d confronted the lad. Also, upon returning from the cave, Dumbledore needed Snape to help him with the potion. Still, why on earth would he want someone who has an Unbreakable Vow to complete Draco's task present when Draco finally and fully shows he lacks the nerve to complete it? Even an honorable & loyal Snape would be left with but two choices - kill or die. Dumbledore would not want that. I see two ways Dumbledore would believe Snape could assist him with the poison in the presence of Draco failing his task.

1) He expected to convince Draco to defect before Snape got there (which I assume would negate the Vow), but the presence of the Death Eaters threw off Dumbledore’s timing. Dumbledore's big mistakes: Underestimating Draco's resourcefulness at bringing Death Eaters into the castle; overconfidence about being able to turn Draco before Snape arrived.

2) He doesn't know about the Vow. But we know Harry overheard about the vow and told Dumbledore. Dumbledore believed most of what Harry was telling him about Malfoy all year, even if he didn't let Harry know that. So only two things make sense in my mind: Snape lied to Dumbledore, said he was lying to Malfoy about the vow, and Dumbledore believed him (what Dumbledore says to Malfoy on the tower backs that up); or he was unaware of the full extent of the Vow, much like Voldemort is unaware of the full extent of the Prophecy. Dumbledore's big mistake: Trusting Snape.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Feb 15, 2007 9:07 pm (#1392 of 1629)

Mattew, I agree. I have been saying all along that trusting Snape was Dumbledore's big mistake, but I don't want it to be. I am trying to prove to myself that Snape is Dumbledore's man, but so far, I am unconvinced.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [


Laura W - Feb 16, 2007 11:12 am (#1393 of 1629)

Mattew Bates wrote:

Laura W - Nov 22, 2006 1:00 am (#895) It would be fascinating to know what the core and wood of Dumbledore's wand is, wouldn't it Deb! However, we do know that the core is not phoenix feather. From PS, p.65 (Raincoast): Mr. Ollivander fixed Harry with his pale stare. 'I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather - just one other. ...' “

While I have to agree with Mrs. Brisbee's post #908 about Priori Incantatum, there are other phoenixes who could have donated Dumbledore's wand core."


I agree with you. I should not have written, "we do know that the core is not phoenix feather" last November. I should have written, "we do know that the core did not come from Fawkes." As a matter of fact, in the ensuing months, I have come around to thinking that I would be very surprised if the core is not phoenix feather (from some other bird). Jo just ties DD and the phoenix in too closely in her books.

Laura

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


TomProffitt - Feb 16, 2007 7:12 pm (#1394 of 1629)

I finally figured out what exactly it is that makes me dislike the "Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's order Theory" so much.

To put it simply, it is too much like Dumbledore is giving up, and that is just not within Dumbledore's character. At least not to me.

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 17, 2007 7:12 am (#1395 of 1629)

That has been my point all along, Tom. Basically asking for an assisted suicide? Just not likely. He would also have known it put Snape in real jeoperdy.

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


T Vrana - Feb 17, 2007 7:50 am (#1396 of 1629)

I agree Thom and Tom (wow, what were the chances of that happening!Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 2222139670) DD would not have given up, nor would he have been oblivious to what was going on in his castle. As DD said to Draco (paraphrased) '...and you did this, as you say, right under my nose..'. Draco takes it as a compliment, I think it was a 'heads up, I know much more about what you have been doing than you think'.

DD would have had a plan to deal with Draco, and it may have gone wrong, but I don't think the plan included Snape AKing DD, or killing him at all. I can't believe Jo gave Draco the last word on DD, 'stupid old man', so something more was going on than what we 'saw'.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 17, 2007 3:56 pm (#1397 of 1629)

While I don't really think that JKR has set up a situation where DD planned to die, if he did plan to die, is it really "giving up" for a 150 year old person to decide that his death would be better than the alternative death of a young man (in wizard terms) in his 30's? Especially if the other person was a very loyal subordinate who was able to accomplish a lot for the cause and who had already saved his (DD's) life?

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


TomProffitt - Feb 17, 2007 5:46 pm (#1398 of 1629)

wynnleaf, I question whether it is in the nature of Dumbledore to accept that his only choices are Snape kills him or everyone dies. It is the accepting of those two limiting choices which is the giving up.

If Dumbledore was capable of foreseeing the eventuality of Snape having to euthanize him, he would have been more likely to plan a different alternative.

Giving Up is not choosing to sacrifice yourself for others, "Giving Up" is admitting it is your only option. I think Dumbledore would have given up too soon if this scenario is true.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 18, 2007 5:17 am (#1399 of 1629)

If Dumbledore was capable of foreseeing the eventuality of Snape having to euthanize him, he would have been more likely to plan a different alternative. (TomProffitt)

Exactly one of the reasons why I think DD must have looked for a way to trick the Vow. If the Vow cannot be tricked, then there are ultimately no different alternatives to either DD dying or Snape dying. So DD would have to make the choice. If Snape were still truly loyal, then I would almost expect DD to chose for Snape to live rather than him.

However, if the Vow could be tricked, then I would expect DD to look for a way and to not just wait around for circumstances to overtake them, but to proactively put that plan into action.

Which is exactly what I think he did.

But, you understand, it depends on whether DD believed he and Snape could get around the Vow. If he did not think they could get around the Vow, then the options were severely limited -- ultimately, Snape's death or his. If he chose his own death, wouldn't he seek for the best way to put it to advantage?

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


T Vrana - Feb 18, 2007 6:12 am (#1400 of 1629)

If he chose his own death, wouldn't he seek for the best way to put it to advantage

Not if the best advantage forces a 'good' guy to AK him and be hated and hunted by the Order, Harry and the WW. Very cruel fate for Snape.

If we accept that the vow was to kill DD (which I don't), and that there was no way around it, and DD had a loose plan for that evening (which I do), and part of the plan was his on death, rather than Snape's, why would DD wait patiently for good Snape to arrive and kill him? Why would he send for Snape at all? Why not provoke the DEs into killing him? Surely if DD slipped on a bar of soap in the shower and died, Draco and Snape would both be off the hook. So, if a DE killed him, same thing goes. The DEs were all so hot headed, it would have been easy to provoke them into action. Instead DD has a quiet, polite conversation.

I can't see that asking Snape to murder him would have been a better choice. Snape is now on the run and hated by Harry (I think ultimately DD wanted Harry to be able to work with Snape and that's why he turned a little paler when Harry learned who gave LV the prophesy), by the Order, by the entire WW. He may end up dead before he can help anyone. If DD was intent on sacrificing himself, he could have done so at the hands of the DEs, before Snape arrived (if DD was sending for Snape hoping for an antidote and to save Draco).

Because I still want to believe in a 'good' Snape, I still have to go with a plan that either worked (and Jo counts Draught or real time when she said DD is dead, but 'more complicated than that'), or a plan that went awry, but did not involve Snape using an unforgivable and killing the one person in the entire WW who trusts him.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1401 to 1425

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 4:05 pm


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


TomProffitt - Feb 18, 2007 6:15 am (#1401 of 1629)

But, you understand, it depends on whether DD believed he and Snape could get around the Vow. --- wynnleaf

And this is my big problem with the Loyal Snape Scenario, I can't come up with any reasonable excuse for a loyal Snape to take the Vow. There are numerous unreasonable ones, but no reasonable ones.

It certainly would have been an interesting conversation when Severus tried to explain to Dumbledore why he took that Vow.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 18, 2007 6:48 am (#1402 of 1629)

If we accept that the vow was to kill DD (which I don't), and that there was no way around it, and DD had a loose plan for that evening (which I do), and part of the plan was his on death, rather than Snape's, why would DD wait patiently for good Snape to arrive and kill him? Why would he send for Snape at all? Why not provoke the DEs into killing him? Surely if DD slipped on a bar of soap in the shower and died, Draco and Snape would both be off the hook. So, if a DE killed him, same thing goes. The DEs were all so hot headed, it would have been easy to provoke them into action. Instead DD has a quiet, polite conversation. (T Vrana)

Some very good points. First, though, it's perfectly possible that DD and Snape thought Draco's task was to kill DD, even if it wasn't -- so they'd think DD had to die to fulfill the Vow. But otherwise you're right. If DD determined that he had to die, why not make sure he died in such a way that it was at neither Draco nor Snape's hand?

So, it makes little sense for DD to plan to die at Snape's hand.

If there was no definite plan, or if the plan went seriously wrong, you could still have a situation on top of the tower, but as you say, why stall for Snape? Why not incite the DEs to kill him?

But it DD were truly as weakened as it appeared (I don't believe this), and any plans went badly wrong, and Snape ended up on the tower as a result of plans going awry, then I could see DD needing Snape to AK him -- but only if it was because everything seriously fell apart.

However, if DD was working according to any sort of plan at all -- which I believe there's a lot of evidence to say he was -- then he did not plan to either have Snape die from the Vow, or for Snape to kill him. So his plan must have been to thwart the Vow in some way.

And this is my big problem with the Loyal Snape Scenario, I can't come up with any reasonable excuse for a loyal Snape to take the Vow. There are numerous unreasonable ones, but no reasonable ones. (Tom Proffitt)

Several possibilities, in my opinion. One is Snape getting into the Vow assuming that it's focus is going to only be on protecting Draco, since that was all Narcissa had talked about up to that point. Then at the last moment, having to make a split second decision to go ahead with the surprise 3rd part of the Vow. If Snape didn't know what Draco's task was at the time, I could see him doing this.

Another possibility is that Draco's assigned task was not to kill DD, and that Snape knew it. The later events on the tower then become some other aspect of a plan gone awry, but do not involve Snape having to kill DD in order to fulfill the Vow.

In my opinion, there's just too much evidence that DD was working from a plan, even if that plan got botched. I agree with T Vrana, that DD wouldn't create a plan for Snape to actually kill him. But if DD thought the Vow would force Snape to kill him or die, then surely DD would work out another way to die. So I'm left with believing that DD thought they could thwart the Vow or that the Vow was about a different task that didn't include his own death. And that DD had set up a plan for the night Snape AK'd him, that may have gone partly or seriously wrong, but may also have worked mostly the way it was planned.

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


mona amon - Feb 19, 2007 4:18 am (#1403 of 1629)

To add another complication to this already complicated discussion, we have no evidence that DD knew about the vow. Snape agreed to the vow on the spur of the moment,and I think his reasons for doing this are based on something we do not yet know. Anyway, I think it was some sort of gamble on his part, and that he was gambling with his own life, and not DD's. So there is a possibility he did not tell DD about it.

One is Snape getting into the Vow assuming that it's focus is going to only be on protecting Draco, since that was all Narcissa had talked about up to that point. (Wynnleaf)

Not really. Before she suggests the Vow, Snape says that it might be possible for him to help Draco, and Narcissa says "Severus-oh,Severus-you would help him? Would you look after..."and then she gets him to agree to the Vow. So Snape would at least have expected a clause that required him to help Draco,which is almost the same as agreeing to do it himself.

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


Laura W - Feb 19, 2007 5:54 am (#1404 of 1629)

mona, actually Dumbledore *did* know about Snape taking the vow. Harry told him about it. When Harry followed Snape and Draco out of Slughorn's Christmas party in HBP, he listened in to their conversation which included Severus saying, "... I swore to your mother I would protect you. I made the Unbreakable vow, Draco -".

Then Harry went to the Burrow for Christmas and told Ron about the conversation he had overheard, including the part about the Unbreakable Vow. When Ron asks, "Are you going to tell Dumbledore what you heard Snape and Malfoy saying to each other?", Harry replies, "I'm going to tell anyone who can put a stop to it and Dumbledore's top of the list."

Which is exactly what he does during his next meeting in Dumbledore's office. Jo writes, "Dumbledore listened to Harry's story with an impassive face." and he then said, "... I do not think that it is of great importance."

So, whether Snape told DD about the Vow or DD learned about it from Harry, he did know that Snape took it. If he learned about it from Severus, he would know what the vow entailed; if from Harry, he would only know that Draco's mother had Severus take an Unforgivable Vow which included Snape protecting Malfoy (for that is what Harry heard when he was eavesdropping).

Laura

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 19, 2007 6:00 am (#1405 of 1629)

... if from Harry, he would only know that Draco's mother had Severus take an Unforgivable Vow which included Snape protecting Malfoy (for that is what Harry heard when he was eavesdropping).

Hmm, that fits! If Dumbledore did think that Snape's Vow only demanded Snape protect Draco, then Dumbledore may have mistakenly thought he could get Snape out of the Vow by making sure Draco was protected. So Dumbledore wouldn't make any moves against Draco, and would try to get Draco into the "Wizarding Protection Plan". Which is what Dumbledore does try to do.

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


mona amon - Feb 19, 2007 7:55 am (#1406 of 1629)

Laura,you are so right. I'd completely forgotten about that-no recent re-reads, I'm saving that up for just before the release of DH!

Mrs Brisbee, I think Snape and DD had discussed the Vow, and he knew all the clauses. That remark of DD's 'I understood everything you told me. I think you might even consider the possibility that I understood more than you did.' makes it seem like that to me.But no proof either way.

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


Wanda - Feb 19, 2007 8:07 am (#1407 of 1629)

But there's still a chance that DD believed that Snape was only saying those things to get Draco to spill the beans. As Hermione says, 'Harry, has it occured to you that Snape might just have been trying to get Draco to tell him what his mission was?' or words to that effect (sorry don't have book with me).

There's no proof that DD knows or believes that Snape really did take the Vow. After all, he trusts Snape so wholeheartedly that it's likely he might take his word over Harry's, despite what Harry overheard. Snape could just say, 'No I didn't really take a Vow, I only said that to get information out of Draco'.

(Am I making any sense?)

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


wynnleaf - Feb 19, 2007 8:31 am (#1408 of 1629)

There's no proof that DD knows or believes that Snape really did take the Vow. After all, he trusts Snape so wholeheartedly that it's likely he might take his word over Harry's, despite what Harry overheard. Snape could just say, 'No I didn't really take a Vow, I only said that to get information out of Draco'. (Wanda)

Yes, it's conceivable that DD was just purely gullible and trusted Snape regardless of the evidence. Consider though, that if Snape said he only told that to Draco to get him to spill the beans, it would be a very risky thing to say to Draco. After all, he told Draco that he had made the Vow to Narcissa, a thing which Draco could easily confirm, including exactly what the Vow was. So Snape couldn't lie to Draco and DD would know that.

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


Wanda - Feb 19, 2007 9:21 am (#1409 of 1629)
Edited by Feb 19, 2007 9:24 am

Yes, but I said what I said from the point of view of Snape trying to deceive DD, not Draco. Harry told DD he overheard Snape telling Draco about taking an Unbreakable Vow to protect and help him. DD would then question Snape about this, and Snape could explain it away by saying he was just trying to get info from Draco.

As far as I'm aware, DD isn't in regular contact with Narcissa to ask her. And like I said, he already trusts Snape way too much to bother.

Edit: the rather convoluted point I'm trying to make is that we still have no conclusive proof that DD knows that Snape took an Unbreakable Vow. We never see Snape telling DD so, and all DD has is the word of Harry, who merely overheard a conversation.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 19, 2007 9:39 am (#1410 of 1629)

Wanda, I agree we don't have proof. However, we can deduce it.

What I'm saying is that if DD had not already heard about the Vow, he would have heard Harry's report about it. That alone would tell him that Snape must have made an Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa, because DD would know that Snape couldn't tell Draco such an easily discovered lie. DD doesn't have to ask Narcissa. He doesn't have to ask anyone. He would know that Snape couldn't risk (whichever side he was on), telling Draco such an easily discovered lie. So that means that whatever Snape said to Draco about making an Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa had to be the truth. DD doesn't have to ask anyone to deduce that.

The only way Snape would have lied about that to Draco, would be if he was monumentally stupid, which DD knows he's not. Therefore it wasn't a lie. Therefore, DD knew about the Vow -- at least from Harry. If that was the first time he'd heard about the Vow, he would surely have asked Snape about it after hearing about it from Harry.

But if that was the first time DD had heard about the Vow, it should have made him particularly suspicious of Snape -- which it didn't. Therefore, it wasn't the first time he'd heard about the Vow. Which means Snape told him.

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


Laura W - Feb 19, 2007 12:57 pm (#1411 of 1629)

Thanks, Mrs. Brisbee and mona amon.

Laura

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


Mattew Bates - Feb 19, 2007 2:39 pm (#1412 of 1629)

There's still the possibility that Snape only told Dumbledore about the protection part of the Vow. That way, Dumbledore still has the incomplete information necessary to make the rest of the events on the Astronomy Tower making sense. I realize this only makes sense if Snape is not loyal to Dumbledore, but some of us have an easier time believing that than others .

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


wynnleaf - Feb 19, 2007 3:43 pm (#1413 of 1629)

There's still the possibility that Snape only told Dumbledore about the protection part of the Vow. (Mattew)

That's true. He could have just told DD about the protection part. That's the only part he mentioned to Draco. But it does say something in his favor that he probably did tell DD about the Vow before Harry told DD.

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


Mattew Bates - Feb 20, 2007 10:05 am (#1414 of 1629)

It's not in his favor so much if he withheld information from Dumbledore.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 20, 2007 11:45 am (#1415 of 1629)

It's not in his favor so much if he withheld information from Dumbledore. (Mattew)

In my opinion, it's an easy chain of deduction to conclude that he did tell DD. As I said, Snape could not lie to Draco about the Vow. Harry told DD about the Vow and DD would know that Snape couldn't lie to Draco about it, and would therefore conclude that there truly was a Vow, if he had ever doubted as much. Harry's telling DD about the Vow did not cause DD to doubt Snape at all, therefore DD almost certainly already had heard about the Vow. If DD had already heard about the Vow, it must have been from Snape.

Therefore, Snape told DD about the Vow before Harry told DD.

That doesn't prove which side Snape is on, but it is at least to his credit.

Back to Dumbledore's death --- this means that DD had known from early on about the Vow. However, we don't know whether he knew the full extent of the Vow. We don't even know for sure that Snape knew exactly what he had agreed to do. So we cannot conclude that DD knew that either Draco or Snape would have to kill him, or Snape would die. However, I think it's fairly clear that DD eventually decided that was Draco's task.

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


PatPat - Feb 20, 2007 7:02 pm (#1416 of 1629)

This is my first time posting to this thread, so forgive me if I am repeating things that have already been said.

From what I have read (and admittedly I have only been able to read a portion of the preceding posts) we have two main focuses here.

(1) Did Harry (and, vicariously, we) see what he thought he saw at the top of the tower?

(2) Are the contents of the Unbreakable Vow what we think they are?

I think we can say fairly certainly that the answer to (1) is "no". It's difficult to ignore all of the pieces of evidence that wynnleaf so succinctly lists at the beginning of this thread. Even if some of them can be explained away, I don't see how it's possible to explain ALL of them. We know from JKR that "Dumbledore is definitely dead." That doesn't mean Snape killed him. There are a couple of things that stand out to me. First, this AK is totally different from every other one we have seen. As pointed out before, why would Dumbledore have been lifted up over the ramparts when every other AK'd person (or spider) has simply dropped on the spot. Second, is it possible to verbally say one spell while nonverbally casting a different one? We know from Fake Moody that simply saying the words "Avada Kedavra" is not enough. JKR was very clear about this in GoF. I rather like the "stoppered death" theory as it takes into account Harry's very first potions lesson with Snape. The bezoar, also mentioned there has already become very important. It's not unreasonable to assume that other information given there will also be important. This is very like JKR. Is it possible Dumbledore was able to unstopper his own death during his fall over the ramparts? Or had he already done this and that's why he was in such a weakened condition on the top of the tower?

As far as (2), it's not impossible that the contents of the Unbreakable Vow were something other than killing Dumbledore. JKR kept it deliberately vague which often means she is hiding something important. But, I don't think so. I guess my question would be what else could Draco's assignment have been? If it was something besides killing Dumbledore, why was he spending the entire year trying to kill him? He tells Dumbledore, "I've got to do it! He'll kill me! He'll kill my whole family!" This certainly sounds unequivocally like Voldemort's orders for Draco were to kill Dumbledore. So, this brings up the question, if Snape did not really kill Dumbledore, why did he not die for not fulfilling the contents of the Vow? Is Dumbledore's death enough, or does Snape have to physically kill him? My guess would be that, as long as Dumbledore dies, the Vow is fulfilled. Otherwise, there would be a problem if Dumbledore died from something else. Then Snape would have no way to fulfill the Vow and would be doomed to die on a technicality.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 22, 2007 12:04 pm (#1417 of 1629)

I'd like to return to something we haven't discussed for awhile. As many may recall, I don't actually think that JKR has had Snape kill DD. Although I'm quite willing to argue about why Snape may have had to kill DD on the tower, I don't actually think that's the choice JKR would make. Because I think the evidence that Snape is truly loyal outweighs other evidence to the contrary, as well as following a possibly more likely literary thread, I am theorizing in part from the perspective that if Snape is truly loyal, JKR wouldn't have a loyal character kill his leader, and then JKR have to explain to Harry and the readers in Book 7 why that was okay.

Alright, that aside. What is the evidence that Snape didn't kill DD with the AK? We have discussed the various effects of the AK and how it doesn't look a lot like previous AKs in the books.

But another aspect of DD's death is how long it took Harry to be released from DD's spell freezing him in place.

Harry's being frozen supposedly forces him to watch what happened to DD. But if Snape's AK was completely real, then DD died as soon as it hit him. Yet Harry can't even blink involuntarily?? If he can't even manage involuntary movement, then Harry was still frozen when DD was supposedly already dead.

I realize that some have speculated that it takes some time for a spell to wear off after the caster is killed, but actually we have no particular evidence of that. And JKR did seem to make a point in the narration that Harry remained frozen several seconds after the AK hit DD. Why did she make this so clear? It seems very possible that she could be using this as another aspect of her narration to first convince Harry and the reader of what they think they've seen, but leave plenty of room to explain later that all was not as it appeared.

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 22, 2007 12:59 pm (#1418 of 1629)

Wynnleaf, I understand what you are saying but if I were to timeline this out, the whole thing only took seconds really. Ok, first the AK. Then they watch, the, I'll call it explosion, of DD up and over the ramparts, then he falls away, out of the sightline of the ramparts. Please allow me to use the movie contamination of Cedric, but the AK then the lift, then the hit the ground, took all of a few seconds.

Then Snape says lets leave and they head for the tower door. Harry is in shock, but comes around in time to hex the last person at the door. The whole scene couldn't have taken more then 15 to 25 seconds and most likely less then that. If your were to clock 20 seconds in your own home you could go from one end of the house to the other in less time, and the characters on the Tower were running. My guess, I tried it out, puts the whole scene at more like 15 seconds. With Harry in the shock he was in I think that he was unfrozen straight away and it took him that long to realize it.

Another time thought I had about this is when you have a dream that wakes you up, startled, how long before you have your wits about you and you actually move? Again it just a few seconds, but for Snape and company who are fully alert, they can move to the door from the tower in about the time it takes you to recover from the shock and move.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 22, 2007 2:36 pm (#1419 of 1629)

My guess, I tried it out, puts the whole scene at more like 15 seconds. With Harry in the shock he was in I think that he was unfrozen straight away and it took him that long to realize it.

15 seconds is as long as many television spots. You can speak about 45 words in 15 seconds. Try it. It's longer than you think. A person might be so shocked that they didn't voluntarily do anything -- maybe. But it's unlikely that a person would be so shocked that they couldn't even involuntarily do anything, at all.

Besides, like I said, this is something that JKR actually wrote into the narration. It may be nothing at all -- maybe just giving an excuse for Harry to do nothing immediately. On the other hand, it can also be a small clue that Harry was in fact frozen beyond DD's supposed death which would have been instantaneous if by the AK.

I think even JKR has strongly implied that DD's death isn't all it seems. Why else would she suggest that we'll find out in book 7 about it? Didn't we see all we needed to see to explain it in HBP? I guess not.

So the question isn't "was there something different about DD's death than only what was apparent?" The question is what was different about DD's death beyond the obvious. So it seems quite likely that at least some of what we "saw" was not as it seemed. This is possibly on of those things.

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


PatPat - Feb 22, 2007 5:21 pm (#1420 of 1629)

I think wynnleaf has a point here. I don't think the amount of time matters in the least. IF Dumbledore was truly dead at the instant that the AK hit him, then the spell should have lifted INSTANTLY. Yet, we are told very specifically that Harry could not move at all. Even, as wynnleaf points out, involuntarily.

Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as Dumbledore was blasted into the air.

The wording here makes it sound like Harry let out an involuntary scream, but was unable to verbalize it because he was frozen. Shock DOES sometimes act as a natural Petrificus Totalis spell, but shock usually sets in after a person realizes what has happened. The first reaction is usually to cry in horror or to jump in surprise or dismay, or even to leap forward and try to stop what is happening. JKR is always very careful with her wording. The words "FORCED to watch" are very telling. It sounds like Harry wanted to move but couldn't.

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


mona amon - Feb 22, 2007 6:44 pm (#1421 of 1629)

I see it the same way as Thom.

Harry sees Snape's AK hit DD.He is not able to make that first reaction described by PatPat,because he is still under the spell(I think it is plausible that the spell would take a split second to lift).Then he stands frozen with shock for a few more seconds,springing into action just in time to prevent the last DE from disappearing through the door.

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 22, 2007 9:38 pm (#1422 of 1629)

Wynnleaf, you are correct, that all you have said could be true. My thought about JKR's inferences is how Dumbledore will help Harry in DH not so much that his death wasn't as we saw it but how it will assist him later.

It could swing both ways and either would work, but I guess that it boils down to my not taking it further then I think it needs to go. Let me say that differently. I do not mean that you and others are going too far, I mean that I believe that the AK did the killing and nothing else. Sorry to all the Snapeettes but I believe that he did the deed, as you all well know, so my need to take the tower scene further isn't needed. Geez, I hope that makes sense.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 23, 2007 2:19 pm (#1423 of 1629)

As far as I know, the only canon evidence we have as to how spells dissipate is from when Dumbledore is killed. Therefore, that's what happens when someone dies: the spells fade out after a few seconds.

If anyone can come up with another example in the books, I'd be happy to hear it. I've never seen anything stated anywhere that spells blink out like a light bulb blowing.

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


PatPat - Feb 23, 2007 7:46 pm (#1424 of 1629)

Mrs, Brisbee, you are right, as far as I know, that the only evidence we have of what happens to a spell when someone DIES is the Petrificus Totalis spell with Dumbledore. However, we have SEVERAL examples of what happens when a spell is lifted purposely. In the department of Mysteries, Lupin lifts the tarantellegra spell on Neville and his legs stop moving instantly. Similarly, Bellatrix's Crucio spell on Neville is stopped immediately when she lifts it. This makes it seem like the effects of a spell wear off instantly rather than slowly. Now, the situation could be different when the caster actually dies, but I guess the question would be why would this be the case? Why would a deliberately lifted spell stop instantly but not a spell that is ended by death? If anything, the death of the caster should end the spell FASTER. In this situation the actual magic behind the spell has been lost. It's like a powerline being cut. Once that power is cut off, everything serviced by it shuts off in the blink of an eye.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 23, 2007 8:11 pm (#1425 of 1629)

PatPat, I can see where you are coming from, but in the examples you give the spell is being specifically targeted to end it. It is not a question of the original caster ceasing to provide more "power" to the spell, but of intervention by a third party who is targeting the spell, not the wizard who cast it. So it doesn't tell us what happens to spells left to their own devices after the caster dies.

We also have examples of spells which fade over time, like Fred's and George's giant poster of Harry in OotP; and magic which remains permanent even after death, like Permanent Sticking Charms.

So basically Rowling can have spells fizzle out however she wants upon the death of their caster. Since the only example we have of that particular phenomena is with Dumbledore's spell after his death, then that seems to be the way it works.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1426 to 1450

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 4:47 pm


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


wynnleaf - Feb 23, 2007 10:02 pm (#1426 of 1629)

The main thing to me is that JKR made a point of the fact that Harry continued to be frozen after DD was AK'd. Now she made this point for a reason. The question is simply why she made the point. She could have made it simply to keep Harry in one spot until she'd gotten all the DE's and others off of the tower. Or she could have done it to set up some clues for later, that Harry was not released from being frozen when one might expect.

There's really no way to know. The point is primarily that JKR has yet another opportunity -- right along with DD's closed eyes, his body being thrown up and over the wall of the tower, the blood on his lips, the glasses on his face, the appearance of sleep, etc. etc. to tell us in Book 7 that we had all the clues necessary to believe her when she says that what happened on the tower was not as it seemed.

She's got loads of opportunities -- what with the various oddities -- to do this. This is just one more.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 23, 2007 10:24 pm (#1427 of 1629)

I guess I view this as Not A Clue, because there is nothing for the moment to compare it to. Of course that might change in the future, but so could anything about anything if Rowling decides that that is the way it is. But for the moment it isn't odd at all, because there is nothing for it to be seen as odd against.

There's really no way to know. The point is primarily that JKR has yet another opportunity -- right along with DD's closed eyes, his body being thrown up and over the wall of the tower, the blood on his lips, the glasses on his face, the appearance of sleep, etc. etc. to tell us in Book 7 that we had all the clues necessary to believe her when she says that what happened on the tower was not as it seemed. – wynnleaf

LOL, the one thing I agree with in that sentence is that Rowling has some explaining to do about that night to get it to all make sense! As for the rest, I guess you well know that I don't see those as oddities at all (excepting perhaps the "oddity" of the throwback effect on the AK, which is explained by it being cast by Snape-- the same wizard who cast the odd Expelliarmus in CoS that sends Lockhart crashing into a wall).

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


Katrina Nadja Romanoff - Feb 24, 2007 2:18 am (#1428 of 1629)

I really couldn't read a thousand posts, so it may have already been said - I think the story Snape didn't kill him may be true, but then he accidentally died falling from the tower and hitting the ground. This explains the blood. The AK could have been another incantation that Snape non-verbally spelled.

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


The Artful Dodger - Feb 24, 2007 8:48 am (#1429 of 1629)

Are we ever told the moment at which Dumbeldore's spell lifted? No, we aren't. We are only told the moment when Harry notices. So, maybe the curse did lift instantly, but it took Harry some time to realize. Which wouldn't be odd at all.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Feb 24, 2007 11:52 am (#1430 of 1629)

wynnleaf, your recent thoughts have reminded me of the scene in OoP when DD jinxes Fudge, Percy, Umbridge and Aurors. They are out cold for a few minutes while DD talks to Minerva, Harry and others. He is about to flee Hogwarts, and tells them the MoM folks wouldn't know how long they were out for, they would awake and only believe "they were merely knocked to the ground..."

I don't know how this *possibly* fits into the DD's Death theories, but it seems like a significant jinx with a lot of applications regarding faking a death, no?

I realize that some have speculated that it takes some time for a spell to wear off after the caster is killed, but actually we have no particular evidence of that.

wynnleaf, we know that Harry was taken out of Draco's Body Bind Curse by Tonks on the train, and it is my little theory that Severus took Harry out of Body Bind Curse on the Tower, just before he led Draco down the stairs. Any thoughts?

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


wynnleaf - Feb 24, 2007 1:12 pm (#1431 of 1629)

We are only told the moment when Harry notices. So, maybe the curse did lift instantly, but it took Harry some time to realize. (The Artful Dodger)

A problem with this is Harry's silent scream. He involuntarily tried to scream. If the spell had been released, he would have screamed. So we know that the spell was still in place.

wynnleaf, we know that Harry was taken out of Draco's Body Bind Curse by Tonks on the train, and it is my little theory that Severus took Harry out of Body Bind Curse on the Tower, just before he led Draco down the stairs. (me and my shadow)

Yes, that's another possibility. But if DD was truly dead, and the spell would come off all on its own, why would Snape need to life it? In fact, why would he lift it? Harry was clearly going to give chase the moment Snape did that and delaying that would be helpful even to a loyal Snape. However, if DD was not dead at the time, then Snape would need to lift the spell, because otherwise Harry would be stuck under the invisibility cloak for some time.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Feb 24, 2007 1:21 pm (#1432 of 1629)

My feeling is DD died from the Potion when he willed it to happen, after the fall from the Tower. It is my sense that DD was keeping himself alive out of sheer will up until the end, so it is possible to me that he decided when to *let go*, and it was after a graceful fall to the foot of the Tower.

Severus would not want Harry stuck on the Tower because he'd be vulnerable. I'm not under the impression that Severus would be afraid of Harry chasing him, so there would be no reason for Severus to want Harry stuck on the Tower and (assuming Severus is loyal to DD) Severus would want Harry nearby, chasing him, as long as DE's were on the grounds. It seems to me that Severus was protecting Harry for most of The Flight of the Prince, so it makes sense to me, that, given the scenario that Severus is DD-loyal, that he'd be responsible for Harry's safety with DD gone - thus, he'd make sure Harry was freed from the Curse and at liberty to chase Severus, thus keeping him closeby and safe. A lot of assumptions there, but it works for me.

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


Soul Search - Feb 24, 2007 3:18 pm (#1433 of 1629)

Where ever did we get the idea that the effect of a curse ends when the caster dies? I reread the tower scene, and see no mention of it. True, we haven't had many opportunities to observe it, but I have to conclude that the caster dying does not undo a curse. JKR's comments about the fedelius charm would confirm it: the existing effects of the charm are not undone, just no more can be added.

me and my shadow 813's mention of Draco's curse of Harry on the train is significant. Draco had left, but the curse remained. True, he didn't die, but I think we are shown that the curse stays until it is undone or, perhaps, fades over time.

That now brings up the even more interesting question of who undid the curse on Harry? Dumbledore or Snape?

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


Choices - Feb 24, 2007 6:39 pm (#1434 of 1629)

Humans can engineer medicines and anesthetics to be long acting or short acting, so it isn't much of a stretch to think that wizards could do that to the spells they cast.

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


PatPat - Feb 24, 2007 10:25 pm (#1435 of 1629)

Where ever did we get the idea that the effect of a curse ends when the caster dies? I reread the tower scene, and see no mention of it. True, we haven't had many opportunities to observe it, but I have to conclude that the caster dying does not undo a curse. SS

This theory comes directly from Harry in HBP 28:

“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 . . . (emphasis is mine.)”

Now true, taking this as fact may be playing right into JKR's hands. We know that Harry is not always right, but, in this case, I think he is. You mention the Fidelius Charm, but, actually, we only have JKR's word that the spell is still in effect if the Secret Keeper dies. I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong) she has yet said what happens if the CASTER dies. Even if that IS the case, the Fidelius Charm is a very special situation. It may be designed to not lift even upon the death of the caster or secret-keeper, simply because of the nature of what it is. It would not be very effective if the charm could be overcome by simply killing the person who cast it. On the other hand, basic hexes like the Body-bind would have no reason to have this property.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 25, 2007 5:30 am (#1436 of 1629)

Humans can engineer medicines and anesthetics to be long acting or short acting, so it isn't much of a stretch to think that wizards could do that to the spells they cast. – Choices

I like how you put that. Kind of like each spell has a built in power reserve.

There is another example of what happens when a wizard dies. Gibbon went up the Astronomy Tower, cast a Dark Mark, came down, and was killed. Yet his Dark Mark continued to shimmer above the Tower.

If all spells are supposed to blink out instantly on the caster's death, no one in the hospital ward would have bothered to conclude that Gibbon had cast it.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 25, 2007 8:22 am (#1437 of 1629)

There is another example of what happens when a wizard dies. Gibbon went up the Astronomy Tower, cast a Dark Mark, came down, and was killed. Yet his Dark Mark continued to shimmer above the Tower.

If all spells are supposed to blink out instantly on the caster's death, no one in the hospital ward would have bothered to conclude that Gibbon had cast it.


If Dumbledore's death didn't release Harry from the spell -- setting aside for the moment the question of exactly when or how quickly that would have occurred -- then we're really only left with one alternative. Someone else on the tower released Harry. Only possibility is Snape.

So if DD's death didn't release Harry, then Snape did. Therefore Snape is loyal.

If Snape did not release Harry, and yet we know that Harry remained caught in the spell at least several seconds following the AK (his involuntary scream that he can't voice), then either a) DD wasn't really dead yet or b) after someone dies, their spells do "deactivate" but not immediately. We have no particular evidence beyond Harry's own assumption that someone's death releases their spells.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Feb 25, 2007 12:21 pm (#1438 of 1629)

This theory comes directly from Harry in HBP 28:

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 . . . (emphasis is mine.)

Now true, taking this as fact may be playing right into JKR's hands. We know that Harry is not always right, but, in this case, I think he is. – PatPat


I disagree that he was right, because we have canon evidence that he is not right. Draco cast the Body Bind Curse on Harry on the train. Tonks released it, Draco did not die to release it. Therefore it is possible that someone -and not DD's death- could have released Harry on the Tower. Everything that is coming from Harry's point of view and not, for instance, the first chapter of HBP, to me should be taken as Harry's belief at the time even if it says he *knows* it.

edit: More speculations on Severus's loyalty to DD --

# In The Flight of the Prince chapter, I wonder why Severus would stop running after he heard Harry shout "Stupefy" at him and saw a jet of red light soar past his head. Would Severus stop and round back just to make sure DE's all got out? Severus had already opened the gates because he told Draco to run. So why turn back?

# I wonder why after DD falling over 7 stories he had only a trickle of blood at his mouth. I would imagine that fall would have caused a splat, excuse the term. This leads me to believe DD slowed his own fall and died at will when on the ground, after taking the locket off his neck and placing it where Harry could easily find it.

# I think it is important to keep in mind how quickly Severus read fleeting images with Legilimency during Harry's Occlumency lessons. If DD was placing images at the forefront of his mind for Severus to read, such as - image of DD taking locket from basin, then image of DD placing locket around his neck when Harry was busy looking up at the Dark Mark on the Tower - then Severus would need only 5 or 6 seconds to determine what he was able to do.

~edited a lot ; )

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


Choices - Feb 25, 2007 2:09 pm (#1439 of 1629)

Me and My - "I disagree that he was right, because we have canon evidence that he is not right. Draco cast the Body Bind Curse on Harry on the train. Tonks released it, Draco did not die to release it. Therefore it is possible that someone -and not DD's death- could have released Harry on the Tower."

I just don't think we know anything for sure right now concerning this matter. Yes, Draco put the spell on Harry on the train and Tonks released it, but it's possible that it would have released if Draco had fallen under the train and died. Yes, it's also entirely possible that someone else released Harry on the tower, and it is also entirely possible that Dumbledore died and it was released. We won't know for sure until JKR tells us.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Feb 25, 2007 2:28 pm (#1440 of 1629)

Choices, no we don't know anything for sure right now concerning this matter. I was responding to a quote posted of when Harry noted "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 . . ." (from PatPat's post)

Harry's belief "only" because its caster was dead is incorrect. Tonks released him on the train, therefore it happened without its caster being dead. I feel secure in the conclusion I have drawn in this instance. That is not to say it couldn't have released because DD died instantly from Severus's successful AK, but it could also have been otherwise. I hope this makes my statement more clear.

~edited for grammar

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


Choices - Feb 25, 2007 2:42 pm (#1441 of 1629)

I think it is possible that some spells can be released either way - by death of caster or by someone other than the caster using a counterspell. I just think we are unclear on what affects spells and what doesn't - some are permanent, some fade away on their own, some have counterspells, some don't, some can be blocked, some can't, some are stronger than others and sometimes the strength is due to the power of the caster, some are unforgivable, some spells do not require a wand (most do), some are nonverbal, etc. I hope JKR can keep them all straight....I sure can't. LOL

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


PatPat - Feb 25, 2007 4:59 pm (#1442 of 1629)

I disagree that he was right, because we have canon evidence that he is not right. Draco cast the Body Bind Curse on Harry on the train. Tonks released it, Draco did not die to release it. Therefore it is possible that someone -and not DD's death- could have released Harry on the Tower. Everything that is coming from Harry's point of view and not, for instance, the first chapter of HBP, to me should be taken as Harry's belief at the time even if it says he *knows* it. (Me and My Shadow 813)

OK Shadow, you have a point here. I think Harry's belief came from the fact that, to his knowledge, no one knew he was frozen under the cloak, so no one else COULD have released him. It's possible this is incorrect. Snape MAY have known, either by legilimency or because he deduced it seeing the two broomsticks. So, we are left with three possibilities, as I see it. Maybe there are more, but I think these are the most likely. (1) The events on the tower happened exactly as we saw them. Snape killed Dumbledore. Dumbledore's death caused Harry to be released from the Body-Bind, which just took a few seconds to wear off or a few seconds for Harry to realize it had worn off. I don't think this is the case because of all of the inconsistencies that have already been mentioned, i.e. the weird nature of the AK, the blood on Dumbledore's face, the closed eyes, the open locket, etc. etc. etc. This last one is really weird to me. The locket sprung open by Harry's estimation because of the force it hit the ground with. Yet, Dumbledore's glasses are intact, and there is only a small trickle of blood.

(2) The events on the tower DID NOT happen as we saw them. Snape cast some other spell (such as Wingardium Leviosa). Dumbledore died when he released his own "stoppered" death and that is when Harry was released from the Body-Bind.

(3) Similar to (2), except that Snape, knowing Harry was frozen under the cloak, released Harry from the Body-Bind before he exited the tower.

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


wynnleaf - Feb 25, 2007 6:43 pm (#1443 of 1629)

One problem with Snape being the one to release Harry from the spell is that even though Snape could have deduced that Harry was there, how would he know he was frozen and not just keeping quiet?

DD would have had to pass that info along to Snape as well as everything else he might have passed along via legilimency. It just seems too much. DD telling Snape in those few seconds to AK him -- yeah, I can see that. Even showing him that Harry was there. But to also include "Harry's frozen?" I don't know. DD only had a few seconds to communicate anything.

Still, I guess Snape could have released him, but only if he knew he was frozen, so DD would have had to communicated that.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 25, 2007 8:29 pm (#1444 of 1629)

I have to agree that having Snape counter Dumbledore's spell is too problematic. Snape would have to know Harry was there, invisible. He'd have to know Harry was frozen. He'd have to believe that there was a good reason to make Harry unfrozen. He'd have to unfreeze Harry using magic and be somehow unnoticed by a bunch of Death Eaters in close proximity. He has to fit this in somewhere between AKing Dumbledore and fleeing the Tower with the Death Eaters in tow. Since dispelling a spell does have an instantaneous effect, he'd have to be ready and willing to deal with Harry once Harry became unfrozen. And Harry doesn't realize he's become unfrozen until after Snape has left-- convenient, and carries the same few second delay that troubles some people about the much simpler Dumbledore-died-and-the-spell-faded scenario. And why would Snape think it a good idea or even necessary to unfreeze Harry, anyway? What's his goal in this scenario?

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


wynnleaf - Feb 26, 2007 6:38 am (#1445 of 1629)

And why would Snape think it a good idea or even necessary to unfreeze Harry, anyway? What's his goal in this scenario? (Mrs Brisbee)

I agree with all the other obstacles you mentioned -- not exactly obstacles, but things that make Snape releasing Harry problematic. But as far as why Snape would do it... if DD's death does not release Harry, then Harry would be stuck on the tower for who knows how long, unable to call for help and no one knowing he was there. So that's a reason for a loyal Snape to release him before he left the tower.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 26, 2007 7:19 am (#1446 of 1629)

I think the Order, and then the Aurors, would be shortly going over the Tower with a fine-toothed comb, and I think Snape would realize that. The chances of Harry being stuck there undiscovered for ages would have been about zero. Considering the circumstances, I can't see that relieving Harry's short term discomfort would be a high priority of Good Snape, especially since casting a surreptitious spell would risk his exposure.

The whole idea doesn't even help the Good Snape theories, because it doesn't untangle the plot's puzzles. It just adds in inexplicable complications. I think we are just on this because there was some objection to Dumbledore's spell fading out instead of winking out, and now we are onto it fading out instead of persisting. It's okay if it faded out. If that were impossible we would have heard about it, from McGonagall or Tonks or anyone else knowledgeable. We know it's possible because of PS/SS, and all those people who said they came out of a fog when Voldemort "died".

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


Die Zimtzicke - Feb 26, 2007 8:46 am (#1447 of 1629)

They said they came out of a fog, but wht if they were just saying that to avoid being punished? It's a hard thing to prove, according to what we've heard.

Another unexplicable complication.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Feb 26, 2007 9:04 am (#1448 of 1629)

They said they came out of a fog, but wht if they were just saying that to avoid being punished? It's a hard thing to prove, according to what we've heard.-- Die Zimtzicke

Right. I'm sure some of them were just trying to avoid justice.

The reason I believe this relevant to the current conversation is because the Wizarding World found this explanation of coming out of a fog upon the death of Voldemort to be entirely plausible. The Wizarding World in general seems to think that some spell effects do fade out at the death of the caster.

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


Choices - Feb 26, 2007 10:08 am (#1449 of 1629)

Regarding the two brooms that were up on the tower, I just don't think that they would point the finger at Harry and Dumbledore. Have we ever seen Dumbledore ride a broom before or even been told that he has a broom? Harry is famous for his Firebolt, a professional, top of the line broom. I doubt that Rosmerta's brooms were anything to brag about, so why would anyone assume that either Dumbledore or Harry had ridden them? They could easily have been left up there by some students.

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


sstabeler - Feb 26, 2007 10:31 am (#1450 of 1629)

Erm, Rosmerta? She could have told the ministry about Harry and DD Apparating and Harry borrowing her brooms so they could get to Hogwarts at speed. Also, with Harry and the spell fading out, I don't think it did. I think it had lifted at the moment of Dumbledore's death and Harry was kept in place by shock. Then he noticed he was being kept in place only by shock, and managed to pull himself together, and whipped off his cloak ( how did he get it back afterwards, anyway? as I doubt he would have re-visited the scene. classes were cancelled, remember, and the astronomy tower is out of bounds except for classes.....) and pursued the DEs.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1451 to 1475

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 4:52 pm


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


wynnleaf - Feb 26, 2007 11:14 am (#1451 of 1629)

Erm, Rosmerta? She could have told the ministry about Harry and DD Apparating and Harry borrowing her brooms so they could get to Hogwarts at speed.

Harry told McGonagall that Rosmerta had been under imperius. But the MOM doesn't know that unless McGonagall told them. And without someone coming to Rosmerta and lifting the imperius, she's unlikely to tell any of them anything.

Interesting that Harry told McGonagall about Rosmerta. It was almost as though in telling McGonagall, he was sort of "doing his duty" to relate a piece of relevant evidence to the correct party. I did not get the impression there that he was also planning to give that info to the MOM. This follows a discussion on the Snape thread, in which we were wondering to what degree Harry directly gave evidence to the MOM about Snape AKing DD.

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


sstabeler - Feb 26, 2007 11:30 am (#1452 of 1629)

I think he was more warning McGonagall not to trust Rosmerta. As for informing the MOM, I get the impression that Rosmerta being under the Imperius is a security issue, thus I can imagine Scrimgeour entering, and this happening:

McGonagall: Minister Scrimgeour, Harry told me Rosmerta is under the Imperius curse

Scrimgeour: What?

Then he yells for some Auror or another ( Dawlish? also, WHAT were the Auror guards ( other than Tonks) doing when the DEs got in? having tea in a guard post? methinks someone got yelled at) to find Rosmerta and remove the Imperius.

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 26, 2007 12:35 pm (#1453 of 1629)

Didn't Dumbledore tell Rosemerta to contact the Ministry?

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


Mediwitch - Feb 26, 2007 2:24 pm (#1454 of 1629)

Yes, but who knows if she did it? (I've wondered about the effects of that Imperius Curse - is it constant, does it need reapplication, how long does it last? ) Since Draco had Rosmerta under the Imperius, would she do as Dumbledore requested? Or had the Imperius "worn off" (ah, here we go again!) so she could do as Dumbledore asked?

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


journeymom - Feb 26, 2007 2:28 pm (#1455 of 1629)

From that scene with Rosmerta I wondered if, aside from the specific things Draco told her to do or not do, she was still her normal self. Her behavior seemed more natural than Crouch Sr.'s in GoF.

I can imagine Draco first told her not to reveal anything he was doing or saying to her. Then he told her to give the necklace to somebody to take to Dumbledore. Aside from that she was free to be herself. There'd be no reason for her not to contact the Ministry.

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


Choices - Feb 26, 2007 7:56 pm (#1456 of 1629)

I like that idea Journeymom. Rosmerta did seem to be herself other than following orders to give the package to Katie. Maybe once she followed the order, the Imperious Curse lifted.

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


Thom Matheson - Feb 26, 2007 8:08 pm (#1457 of 1629)

I'm thinking commands that are subconscious, kind of like hypnosis. Give the neckless away, contact me when you see Dumbledore, but otherwise Rosmerta.

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


journeymom - Feb 26, 2007 8:23 pm (#1458 of 1629)

Thom, that's how it seems to me. It's been a while since I read GoF, but Crouch Jr had his dad under imperious, right? Harry and Krum came across Crouch Sr, and Crouch was fighting the imperio, trying to tell them what was going on. That's what I vaguely remember.

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


sstabeler - Feb 27, 2007 9:02 am (#1459 of 1629)

I think there, whoever was controlling him via the Imperius was telling him not to say a thing most of the time, but I agree, Rosmerta was fairly free to do whatever she wanted. Including contact the ministry about the Hogwarts attack. Also, the minister comes after the battle is over, there is no mention of anyone else contacting him, so I think it was Rosmerta. It fits, while Rosmerta not informing the ministry doesn't.

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


haymoni - Feb 27, 2007 10:38 am (#1460 of 1629)

Crouch was aware that he was placed under the Imperius curse and was fighting it.

Perhaps Rosmerta did not realize what had happened to her.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Feb 27, 2007 10:43 am (#1461 of 1629)

If Draco had complete control over everything Rosemerta was doing, and could see it all somehow, I think he would have been amused by Ron's attempts to get her attention and would encouraged the fighting between Ron and Hermione. which could only have helped his cause.

Yes, I know I'm reaching again, but the only other exmaple of this we have is Mr. Crouch, who was under surveilance or house arrest most of the time he was being controlled.

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


Laura W - Mar 4, 2007 8:12 pm (#1462 of 1629)

Excuse me if I've put this on the wrong thread - and feel free to move it to the right one if I have - but I noticed something in chapter 27 of HBP which, in my opinion, seriously questions the theory which goes as follows:

Both Dumbledore and Snape knew all that would be happening within the castle and what DD was up to on his outing, and had everything planned out before DD and Harry left the school that night, and Snape was up waiting for DD's return, and DD knew that Snape was waiting for him to return.

On p.545 (Raincoast). The ill Dumbledore and Harry have just flown back to Hogwarts from Hogsmeade. Dumbledore had removed the enchantments around the castle so they could fly in. The two of them land on the Astronomy Tower. Dumbledore says to Potter, "Go and wake Severus. Tell him what happened and bring him to me."

Why would he tell Harry to "wake Severus" if he knew Snape was down in his dungeon waiting for his return? He would just tell Harry to "get Severus" or "bring Severus up here." And what's with him saying "Tell him what happened"? Why not just "Tell him I wish to see him"?

Now, if anyone's answer to this is that Dumbledore worded this as he did to throw Harry off, then I guess I can't counter that. I happen to believe that DD was saying exactly what he meant, exactly as he meant it. That is, that he expected Snape would be in his quarters asleep at that hour and that Snape would need to be given the information about what had happened to DD and Harry that night because he (Snape) would not know.

What I *do* believe, in terms of Snape and DD having come to some kind of previous agreement, however, is something similar to the promise Dumbledore made Harry take before they left for the Cave. I think that at some point (ie - that mysterious conversation in the Forest probably), Dumbledore made Snape swear to do whatever Dumbledore wanted, no matter how dangerous or distasteful to Snape that might be. I think Dumbledore might have - during that and other discussions they had - told Snape that, because these were becoming increasingly dangerous times, in future he will be asking things of Severus that *must not be disobeyed for any reason*. And he needed Snape's word of honour that he would obey whatever without question. Which Snape gave - although possibly with some arguing beforehand, just as Harry did.

Which is still a far cry from having determined for certain that both Snape and Dumbledore knew what was going to go down on that fateful night in June 1997 and had worked out together how they were going to handle it. I go back to that "Wake Severus. Tell him what happened" passage. Especially "wake Severus". I don't think Jo would write it that way unless she is telling us that DD is assuming his DADA teacher would be asleep. That is, not sitting up waiting for his return.

Laura

(ah, what Potion have I stirred up now?)

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


wynnleaf - Mar 4, 2007 8:55 pm (#1463 of 1629)

Why would he tell Harry to "wake Severus" if he knew Snape was down in his dungeon waiting for his return? He would just tell Harry to "get Severus" or "bring Severus up here." And what's with him saying "Tell him what happened"? Why not just "Tell him I wish to see him"? (Laura)

Easy one to explain, and I've considered that one often.

DD could easily have told Snape that he would be contacting him later in the night, after he and Harry returned. But knowing that the night would prove extremely difficult for Snape, DD may have said something like, "get some sleep while you can. I'll send for you when I need you."

Amazingly, from what I understand, military commanders -- at least in non-modern wars -- would often know that a battle was coming within hours and try to get their soldiers to rest prior to the engagement.

However, Snape did not sleep, but stayed awake and ready to go at a moment's notice.

One thing I've thought for a long time -- if much of the evenings events were planned for by DD, I think that the big flaw was the rapidity with which Draco got the DEs into the castle. When DD and Harry got back to Hogsmeade, DD tried to send Harry for Snape then. He could have used a patronus (which would make sense if time was truly of the essence), but instead he wanted to send Harry.

However, once DD knew the Dark Mark was already over the tower, he knew events were moving quickly and he had to get to the castle. Yet what does he do as soon as he got to the tower? Send for Snape. But why not send a patronus? Wouldn't it be faster, as well as not putting Harry at risk of walking through possible fighting below? But instead DD wanted to send Harry.

My belief is that DD wanted Harry out of the way. Perhaps Snape was to make sure Harry stayed put (freeze Harry or stun him), while Snape returned to DD. But it never happened because Draco got there too quickly.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Mar 6, 2007 11:27 am (#1464 of 1629)

My belief is that DD wanted Harry out of the way. Perhaps Snape was to make sure Harry stayed put (freeze Harry or stun him), while Snape returned to DD. But it never happened because Draco got there too quickly. – wynnleaf

This is my belief as well. I think I posted it a while back that Harry would have been kept safe by Severus's stun/body bind curse as soon as Harry got to the dungeon. I do believe there could have been communication between Severus and DD for Severus to *wait* for Harry to arrive. When he never showed, perhaps Severus took Flitwick's arrival as a bad sign that events were already far in motion.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Mar 6, 2007 11:58 am (#1465 of 1629)

I still don't get the idea that Dumbledore wanted Snape on the Tower because he knew Draco was going to try to murder him. I know it has been explained several times what the scenario is supposed to be, but for some reason it just can't penetrate my brain .

So, if Dumbledore knows about the Unbreakable Vow, and he suspects Draco is trying to kill him, just why is it he wants Snape up on the Tower while Draco is attempting to murder him?

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


sstabeler - Mar 6, 2007 1:36 pm (#1466 of 1629)

There s a loophole in the Unbreakable Vow so large, you could probably fit the galaxy through. It doesn't say when Snape has to fulfil Draco's task. Dumbledore knows this, and so unless Draco had a specific timetable on his task, which I don't think he had, Snape would have survived. As would Dumbledore. In fact, Snape could kill Dumbledore when Dumbledore was on the point of death anyway, and still fulfil the Vow.

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


Magic Words - Mar 6, 2007 3:40 pm (#1467 of 1629)

I think there likely would be a specific timetable. Otherwise, what is Narcissa so worried about? Even if Voldemort didn't specify a time limit, he surely expected one. I don't see him accepting, at the end of the year, Draco saying "I'll do it later." The time limit is part of the task, so it transfers to Snape when Draco fails.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Mar 7, 2007 11:55 am (#1468 of 1629)

So, if Dumbledore knows about the Unbreakable Vow, and he suspects Draco is trying to kill him, just why is it he wants Snape up on the Tower while Draco is attempting to murder him? - Mrs Brisbee

I always thought it was a combination of the Vow and to stage Severus killing DD in front of the DE's to prove his loyalty to Vold.

Edit: that didn't really answer your above question. If DD knew about the Vow -- that if Draco didn't go through with killing DD then Severus would die, *and* that DD doesn't want Draco to be a killer -- then he would need to devise a way for Severus to appear to be fulfilling the Vow, thus keeping Draco from becoming a murderer, showing the DE's that Severus is truly against DD and loyal to Vold, and moving Severus into the position of helping Harry destroy the horcruxes (by getting secret info from Vold to Order/Harry). Does this make more sense, Mrs. B?

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


wynnleaf - Mar 7, 2007 1:44 pm (#1469 of 1629)

me and my shadow,

I agree with your scenario, except that I don't actually think DD intended for Snape to directly kill him. I think he wanted Snape to seem to kill him. We've gone over several times the reasons some of us don't think DD would directly order anyone to kill him, as well as reasons why I don't think JKR would write that into the series (a good guy kills a good guy and it's okay). So my guess is that whatever DD had planned for the tower, it wasn't simply to have Snape kill him in front of others when Draco "failed." However, I do think DD wanted it to look like that.

By the way (and I've probably said this in the past), if DD was working from a plan and DD didn't intend for Harry to witness it, it could be that DD did not intend anyone except DEs and Draco to see Snape "kill" him. If it had occurred that way, Snape would still have cemented his supposed "loyalty" to LV, without having destroyed his relationship with the Order.

In my opinion, the big "glitch" in DD's plans was how quickly Draco got the DEs into the castle, ultimately making it impossible for DD to get Harry out of the way.

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


MickeyCee3948 - Mar 7, 2007 7:14 pm (#1470 of 1629)

Don't know about that wynnleaf. If he had broken through the DE's barrier, gone up to the top of the tower and then escaped with the DE's and DD body was found at the foot of the tower, I think someone in the order mightttt just have had a few questions for brother Snape.

Mickey

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


Mrs Brisbee - Mar 8, 2007 5:13 am (#1471 of 1629)

Thank you for the explanation, me and my and wynnfeaf.

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


Magic Words - Mar 8, 2007 7:31 am (#1472 of 1629)

If Harry hadn't witnessed the murder, though, MickeyCee, nothing would have prevented Snape from "chasing" the DE's out of Hogwarts and claiming to the Order that he'd arrived too late to help Dumbledore. They might not all be convinced, but they wouldn't have proof of his guilt and many Order members would probably elect to continue trusting Dumbledore's judgement.

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


Thom Matheson - Mar 8, 2007 7:36 am (#1473 of 1629)

. . .except that Snape didn't know that Harry was there.

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


Magic Words - Mar 8, 2007 7:47 am (#1474 of 1629)

In that case, what did prevent Snape from trying to keep his cover with the Order?

This may be a stretch, but I think Snape could have been aware of Harry's presence, especially if there was even a loose previous agreement between him and Dumbledore as to what might happen when Draco made his move. Something I've considered for a while is whether Snape was actually the one who lifted the freezing curse from Harry. Harry assumes it's because the one who cast it was dead, but to me it doesn't make a lot of sense that when a person dies, his magic all comes undone. Would that mean, for instance, that you can escape an Unbreakable Vow by killing the bonder?

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


journeymom - Mar 8, 2007 9:37 am (#1475 of 1629)

Magic Words, that's a good point.

But where did the idea come from? I've got a strong impression that JKR taught us that at least some sort of spells are lifted when the caster dies. Was it just that instance, with Dumbledore's death? I wish I could remember!

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1476 to 1500

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 4:55 pm


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


Soul Search - Mar 8, 2007 11:57 am (#1476 of 1629)

Harry thinks that the spell was lifted because Dumbledore died. However, we have no canon evidence for Harry to think that. That is, the situation has never been mentioned in a class nor has Harry had any experience with a curse lifting when someone died. Nor do we have any example of one wizard's spell lifting if that wizard has been subsequently stupified, or something.

We do have canon that a spell stays in effect until lifted by another spell or, for some, the spell fades away with time.

JKR did say that the fedelius charm stays in effect if the secret keeper dies. However, we don't know if the secret keeper is the one to cast the charm. It might be like the Unbreakable Vow, with a different wizard to cast the spell (bonder for Unbreakable Vow.) There has also been no mention of a spell caster for the fedelius charm, so the secret keeper may also cast the charm.

I have no doubt that Snape knew Harry was there. He could see two brooms. He knew Harry had an invisibility cloak and, most likely, that he had left Hogwarts with Dumbledore. Snape knew Dumbledore, so would know Dumbledore would head straight for a Dark Mark to see who had been killed, bringing Harry. He also could have sensed Harry with Legitimency, or whatever. We do have canon in CoS that Snape cannot see through invisibility cloaks.

Snape not only knew Harry was there, but that Harry would be at risk if a fight with the death eaters broke out. He had to release Harry from the spell when they all left or Harry would still be at risk. I do note that Harry remained under the spell until just when Snape left the tower. Harry did manage stun one slow moving death eater.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Mar 8, 2007 12:39 pm (#1477 of 1629)

me and my shadow, I agree with your scenario, except that I don't actually think DD intended for Snape to directly kill him. I think he wanted Snape to seem to kill him. – wynnleaf

You might have missed in my post I intentionally wrote then he would need to devise a way for Severus to appear to be fulfilling the Vow, "appear" being the operative word.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 8, 2007 1:52 pm (#1478 of 1629)

You might have missed in my post I intentionally wrote then he would need to devise a way for Severus to appear to be fulfilling the Vow, "appear" being the operative word. (me and my shadow)

Yep, I missed that. Then we're more or less on the same page...

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


Mrs Brisbee - Mar 8, 2007 2:21 pm (#1479 of 1629)

I have no doubt that Snape knew Harry was there. He could see two brooms. He knew Harry had an invisibility cloak and, most likely, that he had left Hogwarts with Dumbledore.-- Soul Search

If you could prove that Snape knew Harry had left Hogwarts with Dumbledore you might have a case. But two strange brooms don't add up to Harry. Firebolt equals Harry, Other Type Of Broom equals someone else. For all Snape could have known two of the Death Eaters flew up to the Tower.

Snape not only knew Harry was there, but that Harry would be at risk if a fight with the death eaters broke out. He had to release Harry from the spell when they all left or Harry would still be at risk.

A fight with the Death Eaters did break out-- when Harry pursued them after becoming unfrozen. There are also no clues whatsoever that Snape performed a surreptitious spell while trying to drag Draco away and in full view of Harry and the Death Eaters. I think at least a twitch or a waggled eyebrow or something is needed to make that a possibility.

I'm sure Snape had nothing to do with being released from Dumbledore's spell.

I've got a strong impression that JKR taught us that at least some sort of spells are lifted when the caster dies. Was it just that instance, with Dumbledore's death? I wish I could remember!

The only thing I can remember is from PS/SS, where Hagrid tells about wizards and witches coming out of a fog at Voldemort's "death". This seems to be the Imperius lifting-- or them claiming it lifted. This shows that people in the wizarding world expect some spells to lift upon the casters death. But to confuse matters, not all spells do so.

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


Magic Words - Mar 8, 2007 3:18 pm (#1480 of 1629)

The only thing I can remember is from PS/SS, where Hagrid tells about wizards and witches coming out of a fog at Voldemort's "death". -Mrs. Brisbee

Darn, I thought I might have been on to something. But since we do have evidence that some spells at least are lifted upon the caster's death, there's nothing strange about the idea that the charm Dumbledore used on Harry would be one of them.

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


Choices - Mar 12, 2007 8:25 am (#1481 of 1629)

I found a passage last night that I find interesting. We have speculated as to why Dumbledore chose to land on the Astronomy Tower rather than using the front door of the castle when he and Harry returned from the cave.

In the chapter Horcruxes, Harry heads back to the Gryffindor common room after Aragog's funeral and he can't get in because the Fat Lady tells him the password has changed. Then Nearly Headless Nick comes along.....

‘ He is here,” said a voice behind Harry. "Professor Dumbledore returned to the school an hour ago."

Nearly Headless Nick was gliding toward Harry, his head wobbling as usual upon his ruff.

“I had it from the Bloody Baron, who saw him arrive,” said Nick. "He appeared, according to the Baron, to be in good spirits, though a little tired, of course."

“Where is he?” said Harry, his heart leaping.

“Oh, groaning and clanking up on the Astronomy Tower, it's a favorite haunt of his----“

“Not the Bloody Baron----Dumbledore!” ‘

As many times as I have read this, it never occured to me that Dumbledore arrived at the castle by landing on the Astronomy Tower. JKR wrote that passage so cleverly and slipped that in so subtlely that I was too busy thinking about Harry and the Slughorn memory to notice that Dumbledore had (possibly) landed on the Tower where the Baron was hanging out. This passage made me wonder if coming and going from the Astronomy Tower was not a custom of Dumbledore's - it would surely be a more private was to exit and enter the castle. If it was something that he was in the habit of doing, then his landing on the Tower the night he died was not unusual.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 12, 2007 8:51 am (#1482 of 1629)

Good catch!

I doubt if Dumbledore's landing on the Astronomy Tower was unrelated to the Dark Mark being about the tower.

It's possible that Draco somehow knew that this was where Dumbledore typically arrived, and therefore chose that spot as the place to put the Dark Mark.

If, for instance, Draco had randomly chosen some other spot, it seems likely that Dumbledore would have gone there, regardless of where he typically "landed."

I'm not saying that the tower wasn't his usual landing place. I just mean that I don't think it was an accident that Draco put the Dark Mark above the tower, and DD just happened to decide to land there because it was his usual spot.

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


haymoni - Mar 12, 2007 8:53 am (#1483 of 1629)

I wonder if the Astronomy Tower is just the highest point on the castle, so it just makes sense that if you are "flying in", that you would choose to land there.

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


]frogface - Mar 12, 2007 10:25 am (#1484 of 1629)

And equally it would make sense to cast the Dark Mark from there - where everyone in Hogsmede and in the school grounds could see it.

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


Soul Search - Mar 12, 2007 1:55 pm (#1485 of 1629)

Well spotted, Choices.

The quote also establishes that the Bloody Baron is often on the Astronomy Tower. I wonder ...

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


Mrs Brisbee - Mar 19, 2007 2:58 am (#1486 of 1629)

I found another example of the "knockback effect". Harry is pursuing Snape and pauses to take out Amycus, who is fighting Ginny:

‘ Impedimenta,” yelled Harry.

His jinx hit Amycus in the chest: He gave a piglike squeal of pain, was lifted off his feet and slammed into the opposite wall, slid down it, and fell out of sight behind Ron, Professor McGonagall, and Lupin, each of whom was battling a separate Death Eater.’ -- HBP, Ch 28, "Flight of the Prince"

So Rowling gave another clear example of this effect right after Snape's AK.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 19, 2007 7:43 am (#1487 of 1629)

JKR's "clear examples" are anything but clear. For instance, we've been told that Impedimenta is a curse, therefore -- according to JKR -- the worst kind of Dark Magic. Do we really think that the kids are taught the "worst kind of Dark Magic" at Hogwarts? Not really.

Further, we've been given "clear examples" of the AK dropping the victim where they stand. This was the first time we'd been shown an AK throwing someone anywhere, much less up and over a wall.

And are we to understand that all spells react the same? Can any spell can knock people over, just because we've seen a couple spells knock people over? Perhaps, but on the other hand until Dumbledore, we hadn't seen anyone who was AK'd described as thrown into the air. And remember, DD wasn't standing at the edge of a precipice and pushed over the edge by the force of a spell. He was slumped down alongside the wall around the tower. Supposedly, this AK didn't just push him backward -- which would have simply pushed him backward further against the wall -- but lifted him up and over the wall, where he seemed to hang for a moment before falling. This doesn't look like what any spell would do simply due to a lot of force behind the spell. Force alone should have simply pushed his body more against the wall -- not lifted him up and over. Lifting DD up and over is, after all, two different directions of force.

Moreover, no one, at least as I recall, has ever said that the AK throwing DD up and over the wall is proof that it wasn't a real AK, but as a piece of evidence that it might not be a real, or at least a normal, AK. After all, it's not like this is the one and only aspect of the AK that is different from other AK's we've had described. In other AK's we've never been told that the victim had their eyes closed. When you have more than one aspect of the spell that is different from other AKs, then I think it's time to take note and wonder why.

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


Steve Newton - Mar 19, 2007 8:07 am (#1488 of 1629)

Mrs. B, do you have a list of the knockback spells anywhere? It seems as if it might lead to some interesting conclusions.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Mar 19, 2007 9:07 am (#1489 of 1629)

I still think Dumbledore closed his eyes, because he knew what was coming and accepted it, but that's just me.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 19, 2007 9:43 am (#1490 of 1629)

Just remember, DD was not technically "knocked back." Backward would simply have pushed him more against the wall. He went up and over the wall. So the force of whatever spell (the AK or an extra nonverbal spell that Snape used) would have had to lift or push DD upward , as well as pushing him backward out over the ground. So this wouldn't have been just some forceful spell shoving DD backward. That wouldn't lift him over the wall when he was slumped down along it.

What many people are suggesting -- that the spell had so much force behind it that it drove DD backward over the wall -- wouldn't have occurred unless the wall was particularly low, and DD was standing up straight, so that any force would push him backward and he'd topple over the wall.

But the description in the text shows him sliding "a little down the ramparts." Then we're shown him "slip an inch lower down the wall..." Then we see him "slide a little on the floor..." Then later, we're told that as Draco looked at DD, DD's face was rather lower than usual (compared to Draco's) as "he had slid so far down the rampart wall." When Snape came up we're told that Dumbledore was "slumped against the wall."

Then when Snape performed the AK, it hit DD "squarely in the chest." Now where should any force that might have accompanied the spell, driven a body that had been sliding further and further down the rampart walls, and was currently "slumped against the wall?" Any force that was simply a propelling force wouldn't push the body anywhere except further against the wall. Think physics. Only if Snape had been kneeling on the ground, sending the spell upward at DD, should any propelling force have lifted the body up over the walls.

As it was, Snape -- probably even more so than Draco, since Draco is probably not yet as tall as Snape -- would have been looking downward toward DD, and his AK would not have pointed upward toward DD's chest, but more likely downward since DD had slid further and further downward and was now slumped against the wall.

Yet DD's body was "blasted into the air." And, "for a split second, he seemed to hang suspended..."

In order to raise DD up over the walls, the spell would have to be doing more than simply propelling DD's body. It would have to lift it up. The later description, of hanging suspended, could just be from Harry's perspective. Or it could be a further indication that something happened to DD that was beyond the scope of an AK -- even one with some sort of propelling force.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Mar 19, 2007 9:46 am (#1491 of 1629)

Mrs. B, do you have a list of the knockback spells anywhere? It seems as if it might lead to some interesting conclusions.--Steve Newton

I think it could be helpful, too, if we could look at all the circumstances where the knockback effect takes place and see if there is a common thread. I do not have a comprehensive list, though. Since HBP came out I've only reread for the Read Alongs-- PS/SS and CoS. And I haven't really kept a sharp eye out for when the knockbacks occur; in fact, you spotted one in CoS where Harry knockbacked Lockhart with Expelliarmus that I had read right past.

These are the ones I remember. I'm sure there are more just waiting to be noticed! Let's see what we can make of these.

Here's the first I recall, and it features Snape. The chapter gives us the general idea that Snape doesn't like Lockhart:

“Both of them swung their wands above their heads and pointed them at their opponent; Snape cried: "Expelliarmus!" There was a dazzling flash of scarlet light and Lockhart was blasted off his feet: He flew backward off the stage, smashed into the wall, and slid down it to sprawl on the floor. --(CoS, Ch 11, "The Dueling Club")”

Here is Harry versus Lockhart later in the book, where Lockhart is about to erase Ron and Harry’s memories:

“Harry reached his wand just in time. Lockhart had barely raised his, when Harry bellowed, Expelliarmus!"

Lockhart was blasted backward, falling over his trunk; His wand flew high into the air: Ron caught it, and flung it out the window.-- (CoS, Ch 16, "The Chamber of Secrets")”

In the Shrieking Shack, Snape plans to take Sirius and Lupin straight to the dementors, and Harry decides to stop him, and Hermione and Ron join in:

‘ Expelliarmus!” he yelled—except his wasn’t the only voice that shouted. There was a blast that made the door rattle on its hinges; Snape was lifted off his feet and slammed into the wall, then slid down it to the floor, a trickle of blood oozing from under his hair. He had been knocked out -- (PoA, Ch19, “The Servant of Lord Voldemort”) ‘

Here’s another multiple shot from OotP where the Auror’s are trying to arrest Hagrid:

“Hermione, Parvati, and Lavender all screamed. No fewer than four Stunners had shot from the figures around the cabin toward Professor McGonagall. Halfway between the cabin and castle the red beams collided with her. For a moment she looked luminous, illuminated by an eerie red glow, then was lifted off her feet, and landed hard on her back, and moved no more. -- (OotP, Ch31, “O.W.L.S.”)”

Here Snape is trying to demonstrate how to nonverbally jinx someone. Harry doesn’t appreciate being his mark:

‘ He turned his wand on Harry so fast Harry reacted instinctively; all thought of nonverbal spells forgotten, he yelled, ”Protego!”

His Shield Charm was so strong Snape was knocked off-balance and hit a desk. The whole class had looked around and now watched as Snape righted himself, scowling.-- (HBP, Ch 9, “The Half-Blood Prince”)’

Snape AKs Dumbledore:

“Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore.

”Avada Kedavra!”

A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape’s wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. […] Dumbledore was blasted into the air. For a split second, he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight.-- (HBP, Ch27, “The Lightning Struck Tower”)”

Harry is pursuing Snape and pauses to take out Amycus, who is fighting Ginny:

‘ Impedimenta,” yelled Harry.

His jinx hit Amycus in the chest: He gave a piglike squeal of pain, was lifted off his feet and slammed into the opposite wall, slid down it, and fell out of sight behind Ron, Professor McGonagall, and Lupin, each of whom was battling a separate Death Eater. -- (HBP, Ch 28, "Flight of the Prince")’

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


wynnleaf - Mar 19, 2007 9:48 am (#1492 of 1629)

Mrs Brisbee,

In case you missed it, as we were posting at the same time, please check my last post. Dumbledore was not "knocked back" since being knocked backward would simply have propelled him further against the wall, not up and over it.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Mar 19, 2007 10:10 am (#1493 of 1629)

The papapets aren't necessarily going to be that tall. And several of the incidents I cite use the word "lifted" before the knockback. "... [O]ver the battlements and out of sight" can easily cover being tipped over the battlements without Dumbledore having to be blasted sky high. I'll have to do a reread to see if his back was against the rampart wall. If not, lift then backward would follow the pattern.

Edited because I used "ramparts" where I wanted to say "parapets".

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


Steve Newton - Mar 19, 2007 10:14 am (#1494 of 1629)

Great list. Thanks Mrs. B.


I see several where strong emotion seems to come into play. Hard to say about McGonnagall and the Shrieking Shack scenes since there were several people involved in each. It could be multiple spells or someone really ready to go.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Mar 19, 2007 10:21 am (#1495 of 1629)

I think in every case the the spell was bellowed. At least they all seem to be in italics with exclamation points following.

I too think we have to discount the multiple shot ones when trying to deduce emotion.

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


Magic Words - Mar 19, 2007 11:50 am (#1496 of 1629)

Great list, Mrs Brisbee. So we have two incidents of people being "blasted" and three incidences of "lifted off their feet," and Dumbledore is "blasted into the air." Spells are Expelliarmus, Stupefy, Protego, and Impedimenta. That seems to me like evidence that it doesn't matter what the spell, as long as the force behind it is strong enough. I'm not so sure about the physics of it. I guess it mostly depends on the height of the wall.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 19, 2007 1:08 pm (#1497 of 1629)

If the wall were low, JKR could not have used, repeatedly, the description of DD sliding down the wall. DD began leaning against the wall long before he could be described as "slumped" against it. One does not lean with one's calves on a very low wall at the top of a high tower. From early on DD was leaning against the wall and therefore the wall had to be at least high enough to support a tall man who is standing almost completely erect. While DD was standing up, he would have to be leaning on a wall that came at least to his hips, if not even higher. From that point, DD continued to slide down the wall, until by the time Snape got there, he was slumped against it.

DD slumped against the wall, after having been repeatedly described as sliding several times down the wall, suggests that he had reached a posture of sinking heavily against and drooping against the wall. Considering that the wall would have had to be at least half as high as DD for him to have leaned on it when fully standing, by the time he had slid several times and was now slumped against the wall, I think the wall had to be well supporting him -- well behind his back by that time.

By the way, JKR's use of the word "rampart" as opposed to parapet (which she used in OOTP), suggests a more fortified wall. Parapets can be lower walls, and certainly castles often have lower walls along walkways on the tops of walls. However, a rampart (I've usually seen the word for the earthenworks around fortresses), is specifically for fortification -- not just to keep people from toppling over edges. A rampart would be to fight behind in a battle. Therefore one might expect a rampart to be higher as it is a battlemented wall. The purpose of a castle tower along the outer wall -- a wall tower -- is generally to protect the walls on either side of the tower. The idea is that since the tower is circular, it extends outward from the straight walls and defenders can look down along the walls and defend against people below. Naturally, that means you're going to have people on that tower who need to able to assess the situation below, fire upon the attackers, and be protected while doing these things. Therefore the walls often have loopholes for firing through and are higher so that defenders do their jobs while protected.

The lower walls, also called parapets (although parapets are not necessarily low), are generally found along the wallwalks at the tops of walls.

So, based both on JKR's description of DD sliding and slumping along the wall, plus some typical ways castle towers were built, makes it more likely that the wall around the top of the astronomy tower is a higher wall -- likely at least as high as waist high if not a bit higher in order to fulfill the wall's job of enabling castle defenders to see and fire upon attackers from a protected position.

By the way, I'm sure there are probably some wall towers with low walls, but all of the castles I've been to, in which I could go up to the tops of any of the wall towers, had higher walls at the tops of the towers -- about 4 to 4 1/2 feet I'd guess.

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


PatPat - Mar 19, 2007 4:20 pm (#1498 of 1629)

I think the point wynnleaf is trying to make here is not whether it is unusual for any spell to lift someone up or throw them back, but whether it is unusual for an AK specifically to do this. Every previous example we have seen of an AK has shown the person dropping on the spot (i.e. Frank Bryce, Cedric Diggory). If it is the force behind the spell, and not the spell itself, that causes this effect, why was Bryce not lifted up when killed by one of the most powerful wizards of all time? Are we saying that Snape is more powerful than Voldemort?

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


Magic Words - Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm (#1499 of 1629)

I would say it isn't the inherent power of the wizard but the power the wizard is putting in to the spell at that time. Harry can cast Protego left and right, but it doesn't knock anyone over until he fires it at Snape in a moment of stress.

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


Thom Matheson - Mar 19, 2007 7:06 pm (#1500 of 1629)

As I think of tower walls, there is a high part and cut away to a low part then back up again. Much like a checkerboard. If he were leaning near one of the lower parts after sliding down, he could have been sent over. We can speculate all we want but I don't see a point really.

Not to be a nudge, or anything, but, DD is dead, the Perp that did it is on the lam, and if caught a jury will send him away. The only one that could have a say is Dumbledore, and he's sitting in marble.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1501 to 1525

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 6:17 pm


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


mona amon - Mar 19, 2007 7:19 pm (#1501 of 1629)

Wynnleaf's arguments are very convincing, but since I believe it was a real AK that Snape cast at DD, I need to find reasons for a real AK behaving in the somewhat unusual way it did. And I feel literary resons would explain it best.

In Cedric's death scene, one moment we have a seventeen year old boy, good looking, healthy, full of life and promise. The next moment he is on the ground, dead. This abrupt snuffing out of a young life really brings out the horror of the scene. But in the case of DD, the author cannot have the great wizard just crumple to the ground. Much more dramatic to have him blasted off the tallest tower of the castle.

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


Steve Newton - Mar 20, 2007 4:59 am (#1502 of 1629)

I don't know. I think that Mrs. Brisbee's list of spells causing knockback includes only spells that do not seem to obviously cause any throwing or lifting, but do. Including the AK in this list does not seem like a stretch to me.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Mar 20, 2007 9:11 am (#1503 of 1629)

I know I shouldn't waste a post on this, but I have to say Thom's resumé of the situation is the GREATEST post I've seen in many a day, and I salute it! And completely agree with it.

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


PatPat - Mar 20, 2007 2:28 pm (#1504 of 1629)

ummm. Isn't that the whole point of the thread though? To speculate and share our ideas and theories? Obviously only JKR knows the true answers but it's fun to theorize and debate. We'll find out who's right in July!

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


me and my shadow 813 - Mar 20, 2007 2:38 pm (#1505 of 1629)

Wynnleaf's arguments are very convincing, but since I believe it was a real AK that Snape cast at DD, I need to find reasons for a real AK behaving in the somewhat unusual way it did. And I feel literary resons would explain it best. - mona amon

I agree that the spell was an AK. But I personally find *gold* to be the only substance we've seen an AK bounce off of (other than Harry). I have read over the DoM scene in OoP so many times, and the statues, I am convinced at this point, are foreshadowing how Severus was shown a loophole by DD -- due to the gold locket, the AK does not kill DD but only appears to.

Not to be a nudge, or anything, but, DD is dead, the Perp that did it is on lamb, and if caught a jury will send him away. The only one that could have a say is Dumbledore, and he's sitting in marble. - Thom M.

DD is also sitting in the headmistress's office, and also probably in the Minister of Magic's office or along a prominent MoM corridor. Not to mention the possibility of a DD Pensieve memory of any of several secret conversations with Severus. We know Pensieve memories are an objective recording of events and thus could be used in a court of law.

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


Magic Words - Mar 20, 2007 7:40 pm (#1506 of 1629)

Not to mention DD has been giving JKR "trouble" in book 7, according to Dan Radcliffe. Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 464751818

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


Die Zimtzicke - Mar 20, 2007 7:53 pm (#1507 of 1629)

I think the aftermath of his death is what's giving Jo trouble, or perhaps she even knows she did a sloppy job of writing that death, and it's giving the fandom fits. She did tell Dan that yes, DD is dead, but the situation is complicated, but no one knows what that means but her.

If anyone had found out gold could cancel out an avada, wizards would be walking around looking like Mr. T. I can't get into that idea at all. The spell bounced off the statue, as I see it, because the statue wasn't alive to be killed by the spell.

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


Thom Matheson - Mar 21, 2007 8:32 am (#1508 of 1629)

Die, My pragmatic self thanks you for wasting your post on me.

As far as the portrait, we must assume at this point that it will wake up in time to assist. Also the assignment of the "Heads" portraits is to assist the Head, not Harry. Right now there is no head. Also what difference, if any, does it mean if the Head was AKed? The pensieve would be great assuming that DD didn't die with his thoughts, and that they were left behind in the pensieve for all to see. Until DH, it is still a bit Dodgey for me.

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


journeymom - Mar 21, 2007 8:55 am (#1509 of 1629)

“Dodgey” applied to just the title of this thread is understatement of the century.

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


Choices - Mar 21, 2007 9:51 am (#1510 of 1629)

I think the "Dumbledore giving JKR trouble" thing could possibly be a flashback. Perhaps she is going to take us back to before his death and replay, or give us additional information concerning something that happened in a particular scene - something we were not privy to in HBP, but can now be revealed in this last book.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 22, 2007 4:44 pm (#1511 of 1629)

Been gone to the mountains for a few days, but now I'm back.

Not to be a nudge, or anything, but, DD is dead, the Perp that did it is on lamb, and if caught a jury will send him away. The only one that could have a say is Dumbledore, and he's sitting in marble. (Thom)

If caught by a jury??? Um, the thing is, no one is coming to trial unless JKR has written it into the plot. The question isn't simply what the current "evidence" is, and certainly not what various characters will run off and do about it, as though they would follow some sort of real life expectations in the next book.

The real question is what was JKR is up to and what will she have written in DH.

Many readers think it highly probably that Snape is loyal to DD. If that's so, there is almost certainly more going on up on the tower than "what you see is what you get."

Apparently, back after the Potter's deaths, when Sirius supposedly was the traitor, there were many witnesses that apparently thought they saw him kill 13 people in the street, including Pettigrew. Now we, the readers, might trust what we see through Harry's eyes more than we trust those nameless witnesses in the backstory of POA, but that was certainly an instance of JKR having lots of "eyewitnesses" who didn't see what they thought they saw. If she can do it once, she can do it again, and we all should know by now that JKR isn't afraid of repeating herself.

Now I'm not saying that Snape didn't really fire a spell at DD, or that some Pettigrew type of other person was doing it instead. But whether it was really an AK or not, or whether in addition to an AK he also did a separate spell to send DD over the tower edge, or some other scenario is not wild and strange speculation. JKR, after all, has many, many times made us think one thing only to reveal something else happened entirely. To speculate that this may be one of those cases, especially in light of additional speculation (encouraged by JKR) that Snape may be loyal, is not really going very far out on a limb, even if it turns out to be wrong in the end. This would obviously be bizarre speculation if the books followed some sort of real-life style. But sorry, guys, things in the HP series don't necessarily follow what you'd expect in Real Life. It's perfectly "reasonable" to expect JKR to have done something unusual with DD's death.

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


Thom Matheson - Mar 22, 2007 7:45 pm (#1512 of 1629)

Wynnleaf, the jury thing was just my feeble attempt at a metaphoric line.

As for Snape, If JKR made me wait 2 years to tell me that Snape"s AK was a ruse and he's a good guy, etc. I will be really upset with the book. She can find a way to redeem Snape to the WW if she wants to but to somehow come up with a "I didn't really mean it, surprise", that will just cheese me to no end.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Mar 23, 2007 11:51 am (#1513 of 1629)

If anyone had found out gold could cancel out an avada, wizards would be walking around looking like Mr. T. I can't get into that idea at all. The spell bounced off the statue, as I see it, because the statue wasn't alive to be killed by the spell. - Die Z.

We do see a statue shattered by an AK at DoM, but two or three times the gold repelled them. During such a climactic scene, I ask myself, Why are we being shown that gold repels AK's? Perhaps one AK was more forceful and thus could shatter it. Perhaps Severus's wasn't as forceful as it could have been, but was an AK nonetheless. Also, we are shown that although Vold produced a silver shield against one of DD's curses, JKR makes a point of having Vold say you mean not to kill me which could be showing the reader, besides that DD doesn't use the killing curse, that silver cannot repel an AK but gold can? My feeling is that, if RAB was out to not only destroy horcruxes but destroy Vold, he might have enchanted the locket with extra protection. DD would sense this, as he had sensed traces of magic on other occasions. We have been told that nothing can shield an AK, but in the Wizarding World it was believed no one could survive one until Harry, so perhaps there's another exception to the rule... perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

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


wynnleaf - Mar 23, 2007 1:55 pm (#1514 of 1629)

Good ideas, me and my! I'll need to look again at the battle scene at the MOM in OOTP.

As for Snape, If JKR made me wait 2 years to tell me that Snape"s AK was a ruse and he's a good guy, etc. I will be really upset with the book. (Thom)

Right after HBP, when many of us were speculating that DD might not be dead, a lot of readers said that they'd be terribly disappointed in JKR if she made them all upset about DD's supposed death in HBP, only to bring in back in the last book. While people might feel like that prior to the 7th book, I think that if she hadn't killed him off, and surprised everyone with him being alive in Book 7, hardly anyone would truly be upset. After all, do Tolkein readers hate Tolkein for "killing off" Gandalf in one book, only to bring him back later? Was it considered bad writing? Of course not! Did Holmes fans dislike it when Doyle brought back Holmes? Practically no one dis liked it. In hindsight, once the author has surprised his/her readers, most readers accept it, even if it means that they were fooled in an earlier book. The main thing is that the author write of his/her surprise convincingly and that it be something that is satisfying to the readers.

Thom, I'm not trying to say your feelings about this aren't valid. If JKR comes back in Deathly Hallows and tells us that Snape didn't truly AK DD, or it wasn't a full-blown AK, or DD was already dead, or one of the many other theories people have put forth, you and some others may indeed feel very disappointed. But when I look back at other authors who have pulled big reversals on their readers, it often works quite well -- once again, as long as the author is convincing -- and the readers accept and even enjoy the surprises.

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


haymoni - Mar 23, 2007 5:09 pm (#1515 of 1629)

Yes - it is kind of funny - we are supposed to believe that someone can extract bits of their soul and hide them in little trinkets all over England, but a little slight of wand on top of the Tower is too much!

I still say Dumbledore is dead, but I think he & Snape had an agreement - not a Vow.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Mar 26, 2007 7:15 am (#1516 of 1629)

As a former member of a Sherlock Holmes Society, I can say yes, there are/were some fans who disliked it when Homes came back, because they felt that Doyle was just going through the motions after that, and the stories were not as good. The Lions Mane, The Creeping Man, and the Red Circle get ripped often, just to name a few. That's probably not going to be able to happen with Dumbledore, with only one book left.

Gandalf was different from Dumbledore as I see it. He didn't have a body to bury, an elaborate funeral, and a tomb, and most fans who read those books can go straight from one to the other, and find out quicker that Gandalf is coming back. (I saw more similarities between the way Sirus died than Dumbledore, when I compared them to Gandalf, and Sirius was really dead.) People who can pick up the Potter books later, in my opinion, and go right through all of them are going to see things much differently than we do now.

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


PatPat - Mar 26, 2007 8:33 am (#1517 of 1629)

I don't really think that this is something we can debate. It's a matter of personal opinion and preference. I, personally, have never been disappointed with anything JKR has written and can't imagine myself being disappointed by Book 7. But I can see how some fans might find it distasteful if Dumbledore comes back. But I think, as wynnleaf points out, it will depend on how the story is written. In my opinion, JKR is a fabulous writer and has a way of making the unbelievable believable. But, again, this is personal preference. We'll just have to wait and see! *Goes to check off another day on the calendar until book 7 comes out*

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


wynnleaf - Mar 26, 2007 11:45 am (#1518 of 1629)

Die Zimtzicke and PatPat,

First, I agree about Doyle and Holmes. But the problem there is not that Doyle brought Holmes back, but that Doyle had actually intended Holmes to be dead and when he brought him back, his heart didn't seem to be in it and many of the subsequent stories don't seem to be of the previous caliber (although some are excellent).

Tolkein, on the other hand, had always planned his major reversal and knew from the start that Gandalf wasn't dead. So in spite of having him fall into practically the pits of hell, and in spite of having the Lothlorien elves more or less confirm it, he was still able to bring him back in the following book and make it a satisfying "read."

In picking Doyle and Tolkein as examples, I didn't mean to imply that JKR would bring Dumbledore back, but simply to point out that an author can pull a major reversal on his/her readers and make it satisfying, even with several years between one book and another.

Obviously, everyone won't be satisfied or consider it believable, and a lot depends on how believable the writer makes the story. But it is very possible that JKR can pull some very Big reversals in Book 7 (indeed, I hope for and expect more than one reversal), and many fans will likely love on the page what they might have previously assumed they'd dislike.

Last, I agree with PatPat that it's not actually a matter for debate. We have to wait and see exactly what JKR does. But it certainly has been done before by other authors in a way that satisfied readers.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Mar 26, 2007 4:16 pm (#1519 of 1629)

I agree. Jo can be as sneaky as she wants.Yes,she did say Dumbledore is dead but she didn't say which one.Yes,we have a body,but a covered one in which only Mad Eye would know its identity for sure.

As for Dumbledore being dead, while catching up on varius threads I came across a discussion about Madame Pince's protection wearing off due to Dumbledore's death, therefore,the heavy veil at the funeral. This made me think about Harry's protection at Privot Drive. Why does it wear off at the age of 17? Is it because he becomes a man or is it that Dumbledore knew exactly when he would die? By asking the Dursley's if Harry could return one more time, was he buying more time?

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


haymoni - Mar 26, 2007 4:50 pm (#1520 of 1629)

Maybe at 17, he wouldn't need his mother's protection anymore - he would be a man, be able to protect himself.

I'm sure the battle at the Ministry showed Dumbledore what Voldy was willing to do. His blackened hand showed Dumbledore that "dark & dangerous times" were ahead. Reminding Petunia of her duty may have been more for Dumbledore's sanity than anything else.

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


totyle - Mar 26, 2007 5:59 pm (#1521 of 1629)

I'd love Dumbledore to be not dead (and Sirius as well while we're at it!). And just like many of you, I think if a writer like JKR wants to do this, she will be able to pull it off..BUT..the only reason why I dont think she will bring back the dead is the WHOLE issue of kids reading these books and somehow getting the message that people you love who are gone might come back if you wish hard enough or something like that. Not being very clear here I know, but its just that there are letters from parents and relatives of kids and kids themselves which say how they read the deaths and it helped them overcome the grieving period of deaths in their own families. Bringing back the dead in the books, wouldnt that be making a mockery of the message sent to these people especially the kids?

I know the whole thing is just a story, 7th book over we move on to other authors and other stuff but for the 'here and now' whatever message JKR sends is very REAL..as real as REAL LIFE to some, so I'm guessing that DD really wont be back.

On the same lines but digressing slightly, I had more issues believing and accepting Sirius' death compared to DD's. If this isnt the right thread please ignore this bit..just wondered if others felt differently regarding these two deaths too.

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


Laura W - Mar 26, 2007 11:54 pm (#1522 of 1629)

JKR interview on WBUR Radio, Oct.12, 1999:

Jo: "When I started writing the books, the first thing I had to decide was not what magic can do, but what it can't do. I had to set limits on it - immediately, and decide what the parameters are ... and one of the most important things I - I decided was that magic cannot bring dead people back to life; that' - that's one of the most profound things, the - the natural law of - of - of death applies to wizards as it applies to Muggles and there is no returning once you're properly dead, you know, they might be able to save very close-to-death people better than we can, by magic - that they - that they have certain knowledge we don't, but once you're dead, you're dead."

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


wynnleaf - Mar 27, 2007 12:59 am (#1523 of 1629)

I am uncertain why people are bringing up their reasons for why JKR would not bring Dumbledore back from being dead, when no one has -- at least recently -- suggested that she would do this.

A few people have suggested recently that he may never have died.

Personally, I only brought up other authors reviving supposedly "dead" characters to point out that authors can make what appear to be huge reversals from one book to another and readers can actually enjoy and be satisfied with those refersals. I originally mentioned this not in response to someone saying that they'd not like it if DD came back to life, but that they'd not like it if Snape's AK turned out to not have been a true AK.

I, for instance, did not bring up Tolkein by why of saying that JKR would have DD do a "Gandalf," which she has specifically said would not occur, but simply to show that Tolkein had planned from the beginning to have something happen in the Two Towers something that would appear to completely reverse an event he had occur in Fellowship of the Ring, and readers have and have always since been quite happy with his choice to do this.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 27, 2007 2:25 am (#1524 of 1629)

Weird convoluted writing up above and too late to edit. That's what I get for posting in the early hours of the morning while ill.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Mar 27, 2007 6:46 am (#1525 of 1629)

Not to worry,Wynnleaf. I understood it perfectly. Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 2222139670 What I was trying to say in my post above was that if Jo's Dumbledore isn't truly dead, there are loop holes to work with. The other part of my post poses the question "Did Dumbledore know he would die?" I never meant to imply that Dumbledore would or could be bought back from the dead only that it could be possible that he never died.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1526 to 1550

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 6:22 pm


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


Die Zimtzicke - Mar 27, 2007 6:49 am (#1526 of 1629)

If he never died, I have a huge problem with Jo saying flat out he's dead. She has misled us often enough, but I can't ever remember her flat out lying. And she has said more than once he's dead. She said it in New York, and she said it to Dan Radcliffe, and he told the press.

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


Laura W - Mar 27, 2007 6:58 am (#1527 of 1629)

**laura puts on dragon-skin coat to ward off slings and arrows and other sharp objects, and tells following true story:**

Last week I went into a local coffee shop with PoA, which I am rereading again. The university-aged girl behind the counter cries out, "Harry Potter! I love Harry Potter! You know, I don't think Dumbledore is really dead." I said, as solemnly and kindly as possible, "I'm sorry, but Jo Rowling has said publicly that he really is dead."

Radio City Music Hall, Aug.2, 2006 --

JK Rowling: "Well, Salman, 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 (crowd gasps). And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm, I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now (crowd laughs). But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief (crowd laughs), and I'm just helping you get past denial."

I'm sorry, Madame Pomfrey. I really am.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 27, 2007 8:35 am (#1528 of 1629)

Yes, well, do you remember, Laura, what she said that same night when asked which five characters she'd invite to dinner? After naming Harry, Ron and Hermione fairly quickly she stumbled around for several moments. Finally, she said that the problem was that she knew who was dead and who wasn't -- obviously meaning in Book 7, not in the previous books. In other words, if the character died in Book 7, as far as JKR was concerned he/she was dead at that moment at Radio City Music Hall.

That same night, earlier, she told a 9 year old kid that we'd find out in Book 7 about the answer to the child's question of whether Dumbledore was one of the two she said would die in Book 7.

Point is -- it seemed very likely that night at Radio City Music Hall that JKR would call any character "dead" even if they didn't die until Book 7. Because for her, that character was now "dead," even if we the readers haven't seen it yet.

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


haymoni - Mar 27, 2007 8:50 am (#1529 of 1629)

I think she didn't want to totally destroy that 9 year old, so she hedge on the question.

However, when questioned by Salman Rushdie, she finally realizes that it isn't just the hopes of a 9-year-old boy - many people out there doubt that Dumbledore is dead. So she sets the record straight and tells us all to get on with it - he is truly dead. (I guess she didn't care about Rushdie's feelings!)

However, that quote is the best evidence I have seen that the Trio survives.

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


wynnleaf - Mar 27, 2007 9:59 am (#1530 of 1629)

However, that quote is the best evidence I have seen that the Trio survives. (haymoni)

Yes, but it's only good evidence based on the way it seemed that JKR thought at the time of anyone who died in Book 7 as now "dead." And if she did, then her comment is not only evidence that the Trio survive, but also that DD could be now dead because she had already killed him off in Book 7.

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


haymoni - Mar 27, 2007 11:14 am (#1531 of 1629)

It really makes me worry about Hagrid, though - that was where she paused.

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


]frogface - Mar 29, 2007 3:02 am (#1532 of 1629)

JKR can have Trevor the Toad turn into a Prince (a half-blood one if you want) in DH for all I care. As long as it’s written well I don't care what she does with Dumbledore. I just want my book!

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


MickeyCee3948 - Mar 29, 2007 1:02 pm (#1533 of 1629)

It's her last book as far as we know of. She's one of the world's richest people. She has written the books the way she wants them written. If Dumbledore was "not properly" dead then I feel she can bring him back if she want's too. It wouldn't bother me one way or the other.

Mickey

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


Laura W - Mar 29, 2007 11:18 pm (#1534 of 1629)

... as long as she doesn't bring him back as Trevor the Toad, eh Mickey ? (Or should I say Prince Trevor, frogface ?)

sorry about that ... been doing a lot of heavy negotiating for a gig in my so-called real life over the last few days ... just needed a giggle ... thus the above silly comment

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

Ok, siriusly ... Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 2775603007

I have already given my views on this issue in posts 1522 and 1527. Take it as you will.

However, I *do* believe Jo will bring Dumbledore back to life in a strictly figurative way only by having us see glimpses - and more than just glimpses - of his past. Through stories that others who knew him back then will tell Harry and us. Perhaps Slughorn or McGonagall or Moody or Arthur. Or maybe through stories about DD's past which will be told to Harry and us by one or more members of the current Order of the Phoenix. Another possibility is that we and Harry might hear some of DD's memories which have been stored in a Pensieve, and which will be very revealing in terms of the man and his history. Very possibly, I'd say. (And I look forward to that.)

Also, she probably will bring him back to life, again figuratively-speaking,by having him advise Harry. Not the corporeal Albus Dumbledore - who no longer exists based on how I read JKR's interview quotes -, but his portrait in Hogwarts or something he has written down in a book or Pensieve images will give Harry both guidance and information necessary for him to carry out his mission. I am certainly expecting this.

Laura

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


frogface - Mar 30, 2007 3:36 am (#1535 of 1629)

This I agree with. Albus will be a present in DH as in any other books. He may not have a pulse, but he will have a big part to play.

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


PatPat - Mar 30, 2007 11:34 am (#1536 of 1629)

I absolutely agree. JKR has made too much of the penseive for it not to play a part in the last book. I think we will definitely see Dumbledore in some memories. Didn't JKR say at one point that we will find out a lot about Dumbledore in the last book?? The portrait also HAS to have significance. Surely Harry will be able to use it for advice or information not to mention the Chocolate frog cards!!

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


Krauss Marx - Apr 13, 2007 9:10 pm (#1537 of 1629)

I guess Dumbledore's still alive. There were just too many things in the wrong place, the way Dumbledore pleads to Snape (it seemed), the way Dumbledore's body reacted to the AK, his funeral. I don't know.. Maybe, Dumbledore and Snape's argument in the forest is all about that AK. Maybe Snape was arguing that Dumbledore's AK plan would be too dangerous ( for Dumbledore, that is). And it maybe the reason why Dumbledore seemed to plead to Snape to AK him. Maybe it was a fake AK that could be dangerous. But would seem to be real. In that way, Snape got past the Unbreakable Vow, and Dumbledore faked his death. Maybe...

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


frogface - Apr 14, 2007 3:06 am (#1538 of 1629)

You are by no means the first to think that Dumbledore may still be alive. Sadly however, JKR shot that theory down a while ago. But many of us still believe that the events surrounding the death were very suspicious and that Harry may be mistaken about Snape's role.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [


wynnleaf - Apr 14, 2007 5:29 am (#1539 of 1629)
Edited Apr 14, 2007 6:33 am

Sadly however, JKR shot that theory down a while ago.

In NYC, JKR said that DD was dead. But on the other hand, minutes later she wasn't sure which of her characters she'd ask to dinner because she already knew who died. In other words, to JKR, characters are "dead" if they died in the series, even if it's in book 7. So JKR saying that Dumbledore is dead really only means that he's definitely dead by the end of book 7.

In the same interview, someone asked if DD was one of the ones to die in book 7, and JKR said we'd find out in book 7. How odd, if it was so patently clear that he'd died in HBP.

DD is most likely dead at the end of HBP. But JKR does and says all sorts of rather tricky things. And if readers discover in Deathly Hallows that Dumbledore didn't die in HBP, but lives for awhile and then dies in book 7, I don't think most readers will care at all. A tiny number of people will feel "cheated," but if the book is written believably and well, most people will be quite fine with it. And JKR won't have lied to us if Dumbledore was "dead" when she made the comment. Nor would she have lied about Dumbledore not doing "a Gandalf," since if Dumbledore never died in HBP, would he have to pull "a Gandalf" to be alive in DH, or to die later in DH.

Whatever happened to Dumbledore at the end of HBP, I think the chances are enormous that it wasn't what appeared so obvious on the tower. When, exactly, should we expect JKR to be obvious?

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


Madame Pomfrey - Apr 14, 2007 8:58 am (#1540 of 1629)

Thanks for the above, Wynnleaf. I still think there is a chance he may not be dead yet. We still have Jam question and the question on how Dumbledore got his scar in the London Underground? JKR said: You may find out one day. I am very fond of that scar.

There has to be a reason why she is so fond of the scar. Perhaps, the scar leads Harry to the treasure room. Geez..So many possibilities.

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


Laura W - Apr 14, 2007 3:41 pm (#1541 of 1629)
Edited Apr 14, 2007 5:22 pm

For me, these four quotes say he is dead. For others they may not. I must admit I cannot understand how the words "Dumbledore is definitely ... dead," and "I'm just helping you get past denial" and "the character who died at the end of book six" can be considered in any way ambiguous, but apparently they can.

1. Radio City Music Hall, Aug.2, 2006 --

JK Rowling: But I see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore is definitely ... dead (crowd gasps). And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm, I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now (crowd laughs). But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief (crowd laughs), and I'm just helping you get past denial."

2. Radio City Music Hall, Aug. 2, 2006 ---

JK Rowling: ... I told you Dumbledore is really (Jo moves finger across neck)."

3. Press Conference, Aug. 1, 2006 --

Audience member question (paraphrased): Why did Dumbledore have to die [asked by TIME for Kids representative]

Rowling: I did an interview last year in which I was asked this question. In the genre in which I'm writing, you usually find that the hero has to go on alone. There comes a point when his support falls away and to be truly heroic he has to act alone. Harry is not completely alone, he still has his two faithful sidekicks. This was summarized for me by the person who asked the question with, you mean the old wizard always gets it, and that fundamentally, that is what I was saying. I was as trying to dress it up a little better than that. So that's why. In these sort of epic sagas, the hero eventually has to fight alone."

4. Press Conference, Aug. 1, 2006 --

Rowling: (laughs) ... I don't always enjoy killing my characters. I didn't enjoy killing the character who died at the end of book six (I'm being discreet just in case any on hasn't finished the book). I really didn't enjoy doing that, but I had been planning that for years. As John [Irving] says it wasn't quite as poignant as you might imagine. I'd already done my grieving when it actually came to writing it.

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

I won't go through it again - this message is way too long as is -, but for anyone interested in how I see DD coming "back to life" in Book Seven in a strictly figurative way, you could check my post 1534 on this thread.

Laura

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


frogface - Apr 15, 2007 1:43 am (#1542 of 1629)

I'm with Laura on this one. JKR actually says "the character who dies at the end of book six". Also the argument that from JKR's point of view the events of all seven books have already taken place - therefore whoever dies in book seven is already dead to her - doesn't make sense to me. Sure SHE might think that way, but she knows that her fans don't. To communicate in that way would just be a bit odd and rather confusing for people when DH comes out. Many people would simply think she lied. After all you wouldn't speak in English to someone who could only speak French would you?

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


Mudblood and Proud - Apr 15, 2007 3:12 am (#1543 of 1629)

Laura W is right DD will not come back to life but JKR will do a "Yoda" and he will be present from a combination of his portrait(s), pensieve, and flashbacks.

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



wynnleaf - Apr 15, 2007 8:21 am (#1544 of 1629)
Edited Apr 15, 2007 9:26 am

In general, I think we readers look for some sort of straightforward answer. That is, that Dumbledore at the end of HBP either is dead or isn't dead, and that therefore in DH, he'll either be purely alive, or only seen in some sort of heretofore revealed manner -- such as a penseive, portrait or ghost.

What's interesting is that those who theorize a great deal about Sirius Black's life or death, are often willing to theorize possibilities in which Sirius is dead, but not dead; or went into the realm of death without really dying, etc. Posters seem quite willing to go beyond the simply dead versus simply alive alternatives. I realize this is in part because with Sirius there was no body, while there was one with DD, but you also see oddities surrounding JKR's description of DD's body, in addition to her willingness to compare DD to a phoenix even in the funeral.

I'm not suggesting any particular theory regarding Dumbledore, but it seems to me that if we take all that JKR has said, plus what I believe to be the peculiarities of how she described his supposed straightforward death, JKR may have answers for what happened to Dumbledore that are beyond the simple he's-really-dead or he's-really-alive alternatives.

Of course, if one thinks that Dumbledore really did die a straightforward death, and there really weren't any peculiarities with the events surrounding the tower, his funeral, etc., well then obviously there'd be no reason to even wonder about "what really happened?" with DD's death.

But if you do think there are a lot of strange things regarding the "death" and that these could be clues to something different happening to DD than a straightforward death, then there could be a huge range of possibilities for what JKR will tell us really occurred with DD. And those possibilities don't necessarily have to only be "he died at the end of HBP" versus "he was alive at the end of HBP."

Personally, I don't think Snape's AK killed Dumbledore. I've often stated both plot and literary reasons for that theory. Any number of theories could be devised around that central theory, including several options regarding DD's being alive or dead, and in various stages of life or death.

I just don't think JKR is bound, within the HP series, of only having a character be either plainly (properly) dead or plainly alive. So her various interview statements -- both those that speak of DD being dead, as well as several that imply him being around and "in top form" in DH -- could possibly all work together in some as yet unknown plan of JKR's.

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


PatPat - Apr 15, 2007 10:09 am (#1545 of 1629)

I agree with Laura W. that Dumbledore is dead. I don't really think we can take JKR's comment any other way. She speaks about how difficult it was for her to write the death. If he wasn't really dead, why would it be difficult?

However, I am with wynnleaf that what we saw on the top of the tower was not what it looked like. I think we can take JKR's statement to Daniel Radcliffe about the fact that the death was "complicated" to mean that there is more to it than what we saw. There are just too many unanswered questions.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Apr 15, 2007 7:12 pm (#1546 of 1629)

I think the fallout from the death was what was complicated. But he is dead, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean we won't see him again, in a pensieve, or a portait, or beyond the veil, but he's dead. She wouldn't have singled out fans the way she singled out the Dumbledoreisnotdead site, if she was just jerking them around.

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


CrotonaPark44 - Apr 29, 2007 6:22 pm (#1547 of 1629)
Edited Apr 29, 2007 7:24 pm

I agree with wynnleaf:

Dumbledore's dying words, "Severus . . . please . . .", are definitely a request for Snape to pronounce Avada Kedavra! as pre-arranged by Dumbledore and against Snape's own wishes.

I was also struck by Dumbledore's rather acrobatic reaction to the Killing Curse--"blasted into the air. For a split second he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight."

It reminded me of Sirius Black's almost balletic death in OOP 35: "It seemed to take Sirius an age to fall. His body curved in a graceful arc as he sank backward through the ragged veil hanging from the arch . . ."

Has anyone commented on the similarities between the deaths of Harry's two father figures at the conclusion of Books 5 & 6?

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


mona amon - Apr 30, 2007 1:45 am (#1548 of 1629)

Good catch, CrotonaPark.

I never noticed the similarity until you pointed it out. To me it seems like a literary device to bring some drama into the death scene.

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


Luna Logic - Apr 30, 2007 10:45 am (#1549 of 1629)

Could it give, then, some light about the death of James ?

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


CrotonaPark44 - Apr 30, 2007 5:35 pm (#1550 of 1629)

Thanks, Mona Amon

To prepare for Deathly Hallows I am rereading Books 1-6 slowly and carefully.

I too thought Jo's description of Sirius Black's death was stylized and quite "well written."

When I got to Dumbledore's death scene, the light bulb went on: Jo is using elegant "beautiful writing" to describe these two significant and sad events in Harry's life.

Is this a clue for us to ponder??

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1551 to 1575

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 6:26 pm


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


CrotonaPark44 - Apr 30, 2007 5:53 pm (#1551 of 1629)

This is really a stretch, but Jo's descriptions of the deaths of Sirius Black and Dumbledore remind me of how Thackeray set up theconclusion to the Battle of Warterloo in Vanity Fair, chapter 32:

“No more firing was heard at Brussels—the pursuit rolled miles away. Darkness came down on the field and city: and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart.”

When I read Jo's sentences, I hear the same rhythm and cadences.

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


journeymom - May 2, 2007 10:31 am (#1552 of 1629)
Edited May 2, 2007 11:32 am

Many of us are trying to figure out how Snape's AK isn't what it seems at first glance, so as to preserve his soul or at least his innocence in the eyes of the readers. He said Avada Kadavra! but silently performed some other spell. Dumbledore was already dead when the AK hit him. Dumbledore was metaphorically dead all year. Dumbledore's death was stopped.

Because both Harry and Snape were described in terms of "revulsion" and "hatred", because Harry might be culpable for Dds death with the mystery potion he forced down his throat, I'm trying to figure out a way that neither Harry nor Snape are responsible for Dd's death, that finally it was only Riddle's ring that killed Dumbledore.

But what if Voldemort, Snape and Harry are all responsible for Dumbledore's death? What if the cave potion was deadly? What if Snape's AK was exactly that and Snape finished Dumbledore off? Would JKR do that?

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


Choices - May 2, 2007 11:43 am (#1553 of 1629)
Edited May 2, 2007 12:43 pm

We are all victims of narrative misdirection. We all saw what Harry tells us we saw, but Harry has been known to be wrong before. It is obvious that something happened beyond what Harry tells us he saw transpire on the tower and it will not become clear until we get the full explanation in book 7. Until then we can just keep coming up with ideas and theories to try to explain what we think might have happened.

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


wynnleaf - May 2, 2007 3:52 pm (#1554 of 1629)

We are all victims of narrative misdirection. We all saw what Harry tells us we saw, but Harry has been known to be wrong before. It is obvious that something happened beyond what Harry tells us he saw transpire on the tower and it will not become clear until we get the full explanation in book 7. Until then we can just keep coming up with ideas and theories to try to explain what we think might have happened. (Choices)

I agree. And I have to admit, I sort of feel like we've gone about as far as we can go without any more knowledge. I don't want to discourage new ideas. We were discussing on the Snape thread some ideas about Snape maybe somehow releasing a "stoppered death" for Dumbledore and then doing the AK on DD.

One thing I don't think we should lose sight of is Harry's action in giving DD the potions early in the Cave. I think JKR wants to draw a parallel eventually between Snape's action and Harry's, in that they both are obeying DD's command to do something that neither wants to do, and it seems to be really harmful to DD, possibly killing him. If Harry's action is in fact in no way related to what happened to DD ultimately, it might take that parallel away.

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


CrotonaPark44 - May 2, 2007 6:24 pm (#1555 of 1629)

We are all victims of narrative misdirection. We all saw what Harry tells us we saw, but Harry has been known to be wrong before. It is obvious that something happened beyond what Harry tells us he saw transpire on the tower and it will not become clear until we get the full explanation in book 7. Until then we can just keep coming up with ideas and theories to try to explain what we think might have happened.

Narrative misdirection--I love it. Just like in "Turn of the Screw" and "The Aspern Papers."

My Inner Eye forsees massive doctorial theses on "The Untrustworthy Narrator in Classic English Fiction: Henry James and J.K. Rowling."

I'll bet Jo will laugh her head off

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


Choices - May 2, 2007 7:07 pm (#1556 of 1629)
Edited May 2, 2007 8:08 pm

Jo says her favorite book is Emma by Jane Austen - she has read it about 20 times. The things she loves about it are the narrative misdirections and the major plot twist at the end. She has learned well from her multiple readings and uses those very things in each of her books. Look at SS/PS - Harry misdirects us throughout the entire book to think that Snape is the bad guy trying to steal the stone, then at the end (in a major plot twist) we learn that it was really Quirrell and that Snape was the good guy. She does this to us in every single book and somehow, we never seem to see it coming. Clever Jo!

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


wynnleaf - May 2, 2007 9:16 pm (#1557 of 1629)

One of the best plot twists of Emma (in my opinion) and one that follows throughout the book, is that the protagonist and the reader is convinced throughout the book that Frank Church rather looks down on sort despises certain people. We believe that he probably wants to court Emma, while Emma wants to pair him off with several other girls she thinks he likes. We believe that Frank is engaged in several activities in the course of the book which in fact are just a cover for what he's *really* doing. Ultimately, we learn that Frank's agenda is completely different from what Emma thought, and for many readers, our bad opinion of Frank is revised upward somewhat by the end of the book. I never changed my mind enough to think Frank was of really good character, but I did feel the revelations at the end made Frank look a whole lot better than I'd thought him to be.

In the book, Austen would trick the protagonist and the reader quite often. For instance, she might have Frank answer a question from Emma and the reader and Emma would assume his answer had meant one thing, when in fact it meant something entirely different. Or we would hear, supposedly in an off-hand way, that a character did a particular thing on a particular day, only to discover that they did indeed do that activity, but it was for entirely different purposes than we assumed.

JKR has done this in other books, and I have a feeling she did it a great deal in HBP. It would be very much in the Austen style for JKR to have a character say something that appears obvious, but means something entirely different. The "Severus, please" pleas could easily be this sort of thing, but there are far more less obvious words or actions that could mean something very different from face value.

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


Mrs Brisbee - May 3, 2007 10:01 am (#1558 of 1629)
Edited May 3, 2007 11:02 am

Wynnleaf, you are saying that Dumbledore is like Frank Church? Well, Dumbledore has often been unclear, although I do hope Harry will be the major player and not the pawn in the last book.

Personally, I feel no closer to having figured out what happened than I did when HPB came out. I still don't know how much Dumbledore knew beforehand, and I'm still baffled about why Dumbledore chose to let Draco disarm him on the Tower. What was he hoping to accomplish?

All will be made clear shortly, and until then I feel like I'm on cruise control. But I am looking forward to some good plot twists. I hope Deathly Hallows will be a satisfactory read.

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


journeymom - May 3, 2007 10:01 am (#1559 of 1629)

I sort of feel like we've gone about as far as we can go without any more knowledge.

I totally agree, but I still prefer hashing and rehashing HP theories to doing housework or getting on the stationary bike.

And nice comparative essay of Austen's and Rowling's styles.

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


Mrs Brisbee - May 3, 2007 10:04 am (#1560 of 1629)

I sort of feel like we've gone about as far as we can go without any more knowledge.

That's sort of the way I feel too. Unless someone points out something new, or a new way of looking at things, I'm stuck with

There is no Hallucination Serum in the books- just my indication of how it might work. All three did drink, but might there not be a potion that all have to take to share the effects? I think it could exist although we haven't heard of it, though it would be nice to have more direct evidence.

However, the drinking of the wine is pointed out several times in the scene, and it just looks like more than atmosphere to me.

Also, I just can't believe DD would really ask someone to become a murderer for the cause, and I can't see how Snape could avoid doing the AK curse for real if had taken the Vow for real.

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



journeymom - May 3, 2007 10:24 am (#1561 of 1629)

So, to carry on...

If Dumbledore was dead before Snape's AK hit him (would take unbelievably precise timing) Snape's soul would still be intact. As far as we know. There is no canon evidence that Snape has killed before. Can we imagine a way Harry would find this out? What if Harry never learns that Dumbledore was dead when Snape's AK hit him? Snape would go down in history as Dumbledore's murderer. But he'd know the truth and his soul would be intact.

As a Snape supporter it doesn't seem fair to me that Harry's parallel actions in the cave didn't kill Dumbledore but Snape's AK did.

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


me and my shadow 813 - May 3, 2007 10:41 am (#1562 of 1629)
Edited May 3, 2007 11:41 am

As a Snape supporter it doesn't seem fair to me that Harry's parallel actions in the cave didn't kill Dumbledore but Snape's AK did. – journeymom

If you are talking about culpability, I agree, but the key is witnesses. Unless DD speaks up from a portrait, a memory, or a written statement which reveals the basis of the Forest Conversation and a similar conversation to how DD demanded Harry's obedience in the Cave, Severus will be found guilty. However, and perhaps more to answer your question, when Severus shows up at the Pearly Gates I firmly believe he will have a whole, undiminished soul and he knows it.

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


wynnleaf - May 4, 2007 6:23 am (#1563 of 1629)
Edited May 4, 2007 7:24 am

Of course, if Snape dies saving Harry or in some other way fighting LV, then the question of his being found guilty won't come up -- sort of. He won't be brought to trial.

But Harry and the reader still have to find out what happened. So whatever did happen had to occur in such a way that JKR can convince Harry of how it worked out. I'm not sure that the split-second situation of DD dying immediately prior to being AK'd is something that can be conveyed to Harry in a believable manner.

Wynnleaf, you are saying that Dumbledore is like Frank Church? (Mrs Brisbee)

No, I'm not drawing parallels between specific characters, but between the style or methods of concealing a character's true intent from the protagonist and the reader. I don't think any HP characters are like Frank Church. Maybe Willoughby or Wickham (Lupin, anyone?), but that's another thread.

I sort of feel like we've gone about as far as we can go without any more knowledge. (me)

I totally agree, but I still prefer hashing and rehashing HP theories to doing housework or getting on the stationary bike. (journeymom)


Yes, I agree. I have to admit though, as we get close to the book coming out it's harder for me to come up with specific theories. I'm pretty certain JKR's going to explain it in a way that exonerates Snape. But it could be in any number of ways.

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


Thom Matheson - May 4, 2007 2:27 pm (#1564 of 1629)

Hard to imagine. Snape finally gets his Order of Merlin, First Class, on the way to Azkaban.

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



Choices - May 4, 2007 5:10 pm (#1565 of 1629)

I rather think it will be posthumous.

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



Suuz Smith - May 31, 2007 9:33 pm (#1566 of 1629)

Hello all-have much enjoyed your discussion and kept it in mind while re reading the series. Has anyone theorized that Snape's elf wine in Spinners End was really some kind of potion that made it seem as though he had taken the Vow-but had not? Perhaps a Hallucination Serum?

If anyone could make such a potion, he could, and it seemed that he was directing the scene- getting Wormtail away, making sure they all drank by toasting the Dark Lord, bringing Bella closer.

It would accomplish a lot for him. It helped gain credibility with Bella, his biggest critic. He used his taking the Vow to try and get information from Draco. It allowed him to perform the AV curse without meaning it and hence making it seem that he killed DD to the Death Eaters.

This assumes of course that he was working with DD.

Sorry if you've discussed previously and I missed it, but if not, any thoughts?

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



Mrs Brisbee - Jun 1, 2007 5:31 am (#1567 of 1629)

Hi, Suuz.

Sorry, but I do not think your scenario would work for several reasons. Pettigrew is the one who brought the bottle and glasses in, not Snape. Snape poured in full view of the sisters. Didn't Snape drink, too? Correct me if I'm wrong. Is there such a potion as a Hallucination Serum? If it has been mentioned before in the books, I suppose it would be possible. If it hasn't, then it is highly unlikely that Rowling will spring it on us in the final book.

I suppose it possible that Pettigrew spiked the drink so that Snape and the sisters were all effected by something, but I find it unlikely.

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



Suuz Smith - Jun 1, 2007 6:41 am (#1568 of 1629)

I see your point if we're saying something was added to the wine after it was poured, but I was thinking that Snape had already prepared the potion in the wine, knowing that at some time he could use it like this. I think there is a hint in Draco's poisoning of the elf wine meant for DD-JKR saying "Where have you heard of elf wine before?"

There is no Hallucination Serum in the books- just my indication of how it might work. All three did drink, but might there not be a potion that all have to take to share the effects? I think it could exist although we haven't heard of it, though it would be nice to have more direct evidence.

However, the drinking of the wine is pointed out several times in the scene, and it just looks like more than atmosphere to me.

Also, I just can't believe DD would really ask someone to become a murderer for the cause, and I can't see how Snape could avoid doing the AK curse for real if had taken the Vow for real.

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



journeymom - Jun 1, 2007 8:46 am (#1569 of 1629)
Edited Jun 1, 2007 9:48 am

Elf-made wine: the name itself is interesting. It's blood red. It is notable that they use it to toast the Dark Lord. Dumbledore offered mead to the Dursleys. Mead is used to seal an agreement or contract in Norse mythology. Wine is used in the Christian sacrament, but that's as a reminder, not to seal a deal.

Ah, well. It's sigficant somehow, but doesn't have much to do with Dumbledore's death.

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


wynnleaf - Jun 1, 2007 2:39 pm (#1570 of 1629)

Suuz Smith's ideas reminded me of some theories I've seen recently.

Curious about what you guys think of this one. I've been running across some theories that the mystery of what Dumbledore and Snape were doing on the tower will ultimately be explained by some version or another of polyjuice involvement. The idea is that we've got several mentions toward the beginning of the book that people should be on the lookout for individuals who aren't who they appear to be. The MOM flyer with safety tips mentions having a password and we find out that Mr. and Mrs. Weasley have passwords. And Dumbledore mentions using his favorite jam as a password. Many people feel that the use of Goyle and Crabb polyjuiced as girls isn't really the primary "payoff" for this set-up and that JKR is likely to have some major plot twist hinge on this. If we remember that books 6 and 7 form one long book, we should expect major twists in book 7 to reveal things about book 6.

Some people argue that JKR has used polyjuice enough and won't use it again. However, JKR has used several things several times, and the whole thing of people not being whom they seem (using polyjuice or other devices) is a recurring theme that we should expect to see again.

Has anyone seen any of the theories for polyjuice regarding Dumbledore and Snape? Some theorize that it wasn't really Snape making the Vow in the first place. Others theorize that it wasn't really Dumbledore going to the Cave (remember how he swims like a much younger man). There seem to be a number of different theories about how polyjuice could have been involved.

Has anyone considered these ideas or got any of your own?

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


Choices - Jun 1, 2007 3:14 pm (#1571 of 1629)
Edited Jun 1, 2007 4:16 pm

The theory I have seen regarding this subject suggests that it was Slughorn polyjuiced as Dumbledore on the tower - that it was Snape polyjuiced as Dumbledore in the cave and then he somehow changed positions with Slughorn when they returned to Hogsmeade and then it was Slughorn on the tower as Dumbledore. We saw Slughorn use dragon's blood when Dumbledore and Harry went to his house and that he used dragon's blood to make the trickle of blood on "Dumbledore's" mouth after he fell from the tower. I have even seen it suggested that the plants Slughorn got from Professor Sprout before Aragog's burial were used, along with the poison Slughorn got from Aragog, to brew a potion that was used in the basin in the cave. There are so many theories out there - some are interesting, and some are just outlandish.

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


Breck Breckenridge - Jun 1, 2007 9:09 pm (#1572 of 1629)

I haven't seen this thought before, although it may very well exist somewhere. About Dumbledore. I was re-viewing the film of Chamber of Secrets tonight. In one scene Harry is called to the Headmaster's office and the film shows this large, ornate entrance complete with a very imposing statue of a phoenix. At that moment I had this epiphany! Dumbledore has this close association with the phoenix and even has a "pet" phoenix, Fawkes. Dumbledore is also a master of transubtantiation, isn't he? And what does the phoenix do? It dies and is reborn. And I believe that it precisely what Dumbledore is going to do in Book 7!

I don't believe I have seen anyone else come up with that idea. Ever yours, Breck Breckenridge

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


journeymom - Jun 1, 2007 9:40 pm (#1573 of 1629)

Reborn, as opposed to coming back from the dead? No, I haven't seen that yet. But I'm hardly aware of every topic discussed here.

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


Suuz Smith - Jun 2, 2007 6:18 am (#1574 of 1629)

I suppose that could work by DD becoming a phoenix, dying and then being reborn as a phoenix, then transforming back to a man. Except....anything tricky like that sounds like "doing a Gandalf", which JKR has said will not happen. Would be a neat explanation for DD's body being wrapped up and the consumed in fire though.

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


PatPat - Jun 2, 2007 6:34 am (#1575 of 1629)
Edited Jun 2, 2007 7:35 am

That is an ineresting theory, Breck. I, like Suuz, find it unlikely only because of JKR's statement that we shouldn't expect Dumbledore to "do a Gandalf." This certainly seems to indicate that Dumbledore will not return from the dead, and she has already told us that he IS dead. However, your theory certainly fits the clues we have to date. Interesting.

I, also, had a thought the other day and it is not fully formed so let me just throw it out here and let you guys rip it to pieces! I don't think I have seen this theory anywhere. What if the horcrux was actually contained in the potion that Dumbledore drank? Maybe Voldemort put it there knowing that the person would have to drink the potion. They would then be pulled into the lake by the inferi, thus preserving his horcrux for eternity. Dumbledore knew this and that's why he needed Snape to kill him at the top of the tower. OK, all. Throw your dungbombs.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1576 to 1600

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 6:30 pm


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


Soul Search - Jun 2, 2007 6:45 am (#1576 of 1629)

PatPat,

What if the horcrux was actually contained in the potion that Dumbledore drank?


Some little things fit with this idea. I always did think drinking a whole basin full of liquid was a bit strange.

Dumbledore's rantings would be from the horcrux.

Then, of course, Dumbledore had to die on the tower to destroy one of the horcruxes.

How will Harry find out he has one less horcrux to destroy?

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


PatPat - Jun 2, 2007 7:08 am (#1577 of 1629)

Whew! Thanks, Soul Search. That was pretty much my thought process. I thought I was going to get a hail of dungbombs thrown my way!

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


Breck Breckenridge - Jun 2, 2007 7:27 am (#1578 of 1629)
Edited Jun 2, 2007 8:29 am

Well what EXACTLY is "doing a Gandalf" anyway? Gandalf didn't die in the first place. He said to The Three (Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas) that "I passed through fire and deep water, since we parted. I have forgotten much that I thought I knew, and learned again much that I had forgotten. I can see many things far off, but many things that are close at hand I cannot see. Tell me of yourselves!".

Then later, when pressed to tell of his fight with the Balrog, Gandalf relates "Long time I fell...and he fell with me. His fire was about me. I was burned. Then we plunged into the deep water and all was dark. Cold it was as the tide of death: almost it froze my heart".

So really Gandalf was not dead, only "almost". So if JKR is being truly accurate in her comparison betw. Dumbledore and Gandalf, and not just giving a casual throw-away answer, then she knows that Gandalf was a plot device of Tolkien's, in which it only seemed that Gandalf was lost. But this conflicts with her "bald" statement that "Dumbledore is definitely dead".

In any event, in my theory, Dumbledore is "definitely dead" IF the phoenix is also "definitely dead" when it dies. One can die and be re-born (in fact I believe that is precisely what we do!). Fawkes dies and is reborn. But is s/he still called "Fawkes"? Is s/he the same Fawkes? An interesting question!

Still there is much about Dumbledore's funeral (as well as death) in which Fawkes plays a part. And as one perceptive writer (above) pointed out (and which I had not noted) DD was consumed by fire! Wow!! I think that I rest my case.

Cheers, and here's to 49 days from now!!!

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


Madame Pomfrey - Jun 2, 2007 8:09 am (#1579 of 1629)
Edited Jun 2, 2007 9:14 am

I, for one,l ike that theory,Breck! Dumbledores body was consumed by fire much the same way Fawlks dies. Not only that, Harry sees a phoenix fly joyfully into the blue and then it vanishes.I like it!

I always felt that Fawlks and Dumbledore had somekind of spiritual connection. When Fawlkes would come to Harry's aid he would guide Harry, much like Dumbledore,only through spirit.

Pat-Pat, that is an interesting theory also, but how does RAB fit in ?

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


Choices - Jun 2, 2007 8:27 am (#1580 of 1629)

Isn't it interesting - it almost seems as if a phoenix might have a sort of Horcrux. It dies, but it doesn't really die, and then it is reborn from the ashes with a new body. Sort of the same concept as Voldemort having his Horcruxes - his body may die, but his spirit/soul continues.

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


MickeyCee3948 - Jun 2, 2007 6:22 pm (#1581 of 1629)

Exactly my thought Madame Pomfrey. If RAB had already taken the real locket then he also had to drink the potion and the horocrux would have been in him and we know that the most likely candidate for RAB was Regulas Black who is now dead. Hence there would have been no horcrux in the liquid that DD drank.

Mickey

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


wynnleaf - Jun 2, 2007 7:14 pm (#1582 of 1629)

Mickey, Except that we don't know the circumstances of Regulas being there. Suppose he was the one who was supposed to put the locket there in the first place and instead put in the fake one, not knowing that the horcrux really ended up in the potion? Not that I really think that, but it's a possibility.

I do think the phoenix that we see at the funeral plays some sort of significant part. Why have it at all? If it's just DD's spirit flying away, why wait several days for the funeral? Why include it?

It seems to me that having presented this phoenix, JKR will have to explain its presence. So I'm guessing that it's not just DD's spirit flying off into the great beyond, but is instead going to be part of how we see DD in DH.

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


Suuz Smith - Jun 4, 2007 5:50 am (#1583 of 1629)

If we see DD in DH I think it will be as something like a spirit phoenix that helps defeat LV by carrying DD's love for Harry to him. We know love seems to be poison to LV.

I don't think DD will be any more substantial than that, because of what JKR has said-like things about moving beyond denial- and because of the way the cave scene in HBP seems to transfer the quest to Harry. On the way in to the cave it is DD who leads. On the way out, it is Harry who carries DD. Harry provides the blood to open the wall and he apparates back to Hogsmead. One of the most touching lines in the series comes I think when Harry tells DD not to worry, and DD says he won't because "I am with you."

This seems to me to be the moment really when the torch is passed. DD still has a job to do in trying to save Draco, and providing Snape with more credibility with LV. But I think we miss the power of the writing and the story if we keep trying to bring DD back. I think that's what prompted JKR finally to just say, DD is dead.

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


Breck Breckenridge - Jun 7, 2007 7:02 am (#1584 of 1629)

Hi SS. You are undoubtably right about DD being "definitely dead"...as far as that goes. JKR has too much of a history of pulling the rug out from under us though for me to be completely convinced that "definitely dead" means we'll never see him again in another form, hence my thought that phoenixes die. Afterall, who is going to help Harry with the horcruxes? Horcruxes, keep in mind that we are supposed to think they are dangerous enough so that DD almost died in tackling just one. And yet he never tells Harry anything about how to go about tackling them himself!

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


Choices - Jun 7, 2007 7:18 am (#1585 of 1629)

I think Dumbledore never tells Harry about how to tackle a Horcrux because there is no hard and fast way - there is no one, two, three instructions - open the Horcrux, remove the soul bit, flush it down Moaning Myrtle's toilet. Congratulations, you have just destroyed a Horcrux. :-) Each Horcrux is a puzzle that must be solved individually - we have seen several instances of Harry (along with Ron and Hermione) solving puzzles throughout the books and I believe these were learning exercises for the job ahead. First the Horcrux must be found and then the trio must determine just how to destroy it. It's not going to be easy, but by working together they can do it. Just my opinion.....

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


Thom Matheson - Jun 7, 2007 1:58 pm (#1586 of 1629)

That was probably why DD wanted Harry to get Ron and Hermione invloved right from the off.

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


Suuz Smith - Jun 7, 2007 6:08 pm (#1587 of 1629)

BB-Oh yes, JKR is a tricky one. Still, Harry has some experience with the horcruxes, having destroyed the diary and gone with DD to the cave to retrieve the locket.

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


me and my shadow 813 - Jun 8, 2007 6:28 pm (#1588 of 1629)
Edited Jun 8, 2007 7:29 pm

Enjoyed reading recent posts. I've always liked the idea that there are other Polyjuice twists coming in DH that will disprove what we thought occurred in HBP. But I don't think it could be Severus as DD going to the Cave -- wouldn't he have to drink the potion every hour or he'd revert back to himself? Too many holes in that one... I know we could rationalise it as Severus's Potion Master Genius came up with a special long-wearing potion, but I'm sure JKR told us from the beginning that Polyjuice must be drank regularly, for a reason. However, I do think there was a Polyjuiced person in the Tower/Battle scene.

PatPat, interesting about the Potion-horcrux theory.

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


Suuz Smith - Jun 9, 2007 7:06 pm (#1589 of 1629)

I'm sure they'll be lots of Polyjuice, Potion-horcrux type surprises in DH. Time is running out though, so may I posit my pet theory on DD's Death? Will be fun to check off later if anything is right!

First, I think Snape is working with DD. At Spinner's End I think he had prepared a potion to "bewitch the mind" in the elf wine, and used it with Bella and Narcissa to make it appear that he made the Unbreakable Vow, but that he did not.

Next, Snape has been keeping DD alive after the ring injury, probably with another potion. We are prepared for this with his preparation of the potion for Lupin each month, and the idea of the Elixir of Life keeping Nicolas Flamel alive.

DD knows that Draco is planning to kill him, and has the plan in place with Snape to do a fake AK on him. DD does not believe that Draco will be able to do it in the end, and plans to offer him sanctuary. Snape thinks that DD "takes too much for granted" in thinking Draco won't kill him.

DD knows this is the night when Harry tells him about Draco's elation at his success. He tells Snape to be ready when Harry goes to get his cape.

When they come back to the Tower, DD hides Harry safely when he can't get him out of the way sending him to Snape. He gives Draco a chance to come round and waits for Snape. He slides down the wall to retrieve his wand unobtrusively with a silent command. Snape comes, and DD does a final bit of playacting in whining for his life. Snape does an AK that he doesn't really mean, and so it has little effect. DD provides the theatrics of rising up and falling down, but he is controlling it all. Snape is angry because he has to play the coward instead of the hero who is risking his life. Harry is going to get that honor again.

Snape gets the Death Eaters out of Hogwarts before any more damage can be done by them. He keeps Harry out of harm's way, even though Harry incenses him by calling him a coward. Snape now will be absolutely trusted by LV, and will be able to help Harry at a crucial moment.

DD arranges himself at the bottom of the Tower, and takes a swig of another potion prepared by Snape- the one with the "stopper on death"- but in this case fake death. It is the potion he would have offered to Draco if he had relented, and some of it dribbles from DD's mouth, looking like blood.

Hagrid moves DD's body, and later DD really does die from the effects of the ring curse, perhaps as soon as when the phoenix sings its mourning song. His body shows the signs of death from the curse, so is covered at the funeral.

There are plenty of questions not answered here- but thank you for your patience in allowing this outline- and what do you think-anything really impossible?

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


Choices - Jun 10, 2007 8:40 am (#1590 of 1629)

Suuz - "He slides down the wall to retrieve his wand unobtrusively with a silent command."

If you reread that scene, Dumbledore's wand flew over the ramparts when Draco disarmed him. He slipped down the wall because he was growing weaker, not to retrieve his wand which was somewhere on the ground below the tower - probably in the area where Dumbledore would land when he falls to the ground a few minutes later.

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


Breck Breckenridge - Jun 10, 2007 6:20 pm (#1591 of 1629)

Ah, it always comes back to Snape, doesn't it? I think I have read just about every variation on what Snape did on the night Dumbledore died. And what has been going on all along with regard to Snape's true allegiance. It also always comes back to whether or not you believe that Dumbledore was on top of what was going on, or if he had been, unfortunately, deceived by Snape.

I'm not much for the polyjuice scenarios. It just gets too complicated. And Joanne already has the plot complicated enough! I think that something happened when Dumbledore attempted to deal with the ring horcrux, and that this event led, as we are given it, to the damaged arm. There is much more to that event than we know about.

I agree with John Granger in considering very seriously the magic of "stoppered death", which was mentioned in the very first class "we" have with Snape in Book 1. We have never been told what exactly the potion "stoppered death" is. But it would be just like Joanne to put the key to the last book in the first.

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


Suuz Smith - Jun 10, 2007 8:10 pm (#1592 of 1629)

Choices- you are so right. The wand did go over the ramparts. Alas, earwax. Of course, it could have gotten stuck on one of those convenient ledges castles seem to have- close enough to bring back easily if you are DD.

But how about this instead. DD knows he is going to have to appear helpless to carry out the plan of the fake AK curse. So he arranges to lose a wand- but in his robes there is another. We know that wizards can use another's wand-Barty Jr. used Harry's. It does seem that a wizard will only have one wand of his own at a time- so who would be close enough to DD to go without, until his is returned or he gets a new one?

Maybe a sibling bartender in Hogsmead?

This may sound a bit wild, but I really think the way DD appeared at the bottom of he tower shows that he must have had control of the situation (including glasses on- perhaps to read RAB's note?) So I just have to think he managed it somehow.

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


Suuz Smith - Jun 11, 2007 7:52 am (#1593 of 1629)

Oh - here's the other shoe dropping. Why have the wand when you can have the whole wizard? What if Aberforth were waiting to hep DD at the Tower- perhaps below to "catch" him as DD had once caught Harry when he fell due to the Dementors during a match?

Remember DD says to Draco "yes and no" when Draco boasts that the DE brought DD to the Tower with the Dark Mark? Meaning- "Yes, you wanted me here but this is where I have arranged to be with others to carry out my plan."

Sorry, I haven't read years of posts to know if this has come up before-but it could work I think.

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


wynnleaf - Jun 11, 2007 8:37 am (#1594 of 1629)
Edited Jun 11, 2007 9:38 am

I have always thought it a bit of JKR foreshadowing the events on the tower, when Harry, early in HBP, is stuck frozen under his invisibility cloak on the train and without his wand. He is trying to silently call it to him and is convinced that, were Dumbledore in that same predicament, he'd be able to silently and wandless, call his own wand. Whether planned by DD or not, I think JKR is foreshadowing the idea that DD could have called his own wand, but chose not to do it.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 11, 2007 9:27 am (#1595 of 1629)

I think that, if Dumbledore had not of been so ill, he could have wandlessly Accioed his wand. But he was very ill, so I don't think it possible. He did choose to let Draco disarm him in the first place, so it does seem he was willing to give up his wand to confront Draco, but I don't think he knew there was a pack of Death Eaters in the school when he did so.

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


Soul Search - Jun 11, 2007 10:30 am (#1596 of 1629)

Dumbledore did seem rather surprised Draco found a way to let Death Eaters into Hogwarts. He has made this kind of mistake before. He also may not have anticipated being so debilitated by the cave potion. That would mean whatever Dumbledore's original plans were, they were set askew when the Death Eaters arrived on the tower.

Also, it would appear Snape knew part of Draco's plan was to set the dark mark and lure Dumbledore to the tower, then try to kill him. Snape did not know of the plan for Death Eaters invading Hogwarts, either. Might be why he stunned Flitwick; an unexpected development. Snape had to hurry to the tower, not hang around fighting Death Eaters.

Dumbledore's plan was oriented toward saving Draco. He would have had some alternative if Draco did try to kill him.

How much of what we saw was part of the original plan?

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


Choices - Jun 11, 2007 10:52 am (#1597 of 1629)

Soul Search - "Dumbledore did seem rather surprised Draco found a way to let Death Eaters into Hogwarts."

I think Dumbledore's "surprise" was just for Draco's sake. I can't believe he did not know about all the goings-on in the Room of Requirement and around the castle.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 11, 2007 11:05 am (#1598 of 1629)

How much of what we saw was part of the original plan?-- Soul Search

That's my question, too. I don't think there was a specific plan in place for that particular night, but Dumbledore must have had some sort of plan in mind of what to do about Draco, amongst other things. Dumbledore indicated that he knew what Draco had been up to for a long time.

I'm not so sure that Snape knew the details of Draco's plan. I do think Snape was surprised by Flitwick's news, realized Draco was up to something and set out to find him. If Snape knew Dumbledore had left the castle he wouldn't have expected to run into Dumbledore.

I'm positive Dumbledore didn't know and didn't intend that Death Eaters would run amok through the school. Dumbledore wouldn't knowingly let Voldemort in, so I can't see him knowingly allowing Voldemort's minions either-- especially considering how many murders and attempted murders are already attributed to them.

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


Breck Breckenridge - Jun 11, 2007 11:30 am (#1599 of 1629)

Well heck folks! There's a whole book on this whole topic, edited by John Granger and entitled "Who killed Albus Dumbledore" (Zosima Books, 2007). After I read it and its 6 essayists, I went back over all the six books/the canon looking at The Headmaster. From The Philosopher's Stone all the way thru to The Half-Blood Prince, I have never seen Albus Dumblemdore when he wasn't 'ahead of the curve'. He has always been in complete command of the circumstances. So I have to go with the theories which propose that this whole thing is an Albus Dumbledore Production, his finest in fact as it is also his last. He might be mildly surprised by Draco's cabinet trick and the entry of the Death Eaters, but I don't think that it altered his plan. He knew that Draco was up to something and it isn't much of a stretch of thought to associate said Draco activity with DEs.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 11, 2007 2:25 pm (#1600 of 1629)
Edited Jun 11, 2007 3:26 pm

I'm not familiar with John Granger. I mean I've heard of him, but I haven't read the books, so I don't know exactly what his theories are or the evidence he uses to support them.

We do have several instances where Dumbledore is taken by surprise in the books, not least of which is Harry's kidnapping and Fake Moody in book 4. Dumbledore is brilliant, but he doesn't control or know everything.

We don't know what Dumbledore's plan was-- yet. So it is hard to tell how much it got derailed by the events at the end of HBP. I'm sure he had a plan of some sort regarding Draco, but I'm not betting it went off as planned.

Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Posts 1601 to 1629

Post  Lady Arabella on Wed May 25, 2011 6:34 pm


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


Breck Breckenridge - Jun 11, 2007 8:10 pm (#1601 of 1629)

Going back to the phoenix idea I started out with, I was just now reading some stuff on Fawkes and phoenixes in general and found this odd statement (referring to the phoenix's regeneration: "Fawkes has also been through this regeneration as the result of being hit with a Killing Curse intended for Dumbledore (OP37)...". Is the OP there Order of the Phoenix? If so, the number 37 is not the page number of the American edition as there is no mention of any attack on that page. So what is this with an attack with Killing Curse on Dumbledore that hit Fawkes?!! This Killing Curse, Fawkes and Dumbledore mentioned all in the same breath is very suggestive.

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


Jenniffler - Jun 11, 2007 8:32 pm (#1602 of 1629)

Breck Breckenridge, the reference is found in Chapter 37 of the Order of the Phoenix. Fawkes definitely died and was reborn on the floor of the Ministry for Magic. My American hardback has it on page 815.

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


Breck Breckenridge - Jun 12, 2007 5:49 am (#1603 of 1629)
Edited Jun 12, 2007 6:49 am

Jenniffler, thanks!

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


Choices - Jun 12, 2007 6:49 am (#1604 of 1629)

Many people ask, if Fawkes could show up in an instant to save Dumbledore from Voldemort's AK at the MOM battle, why didn't he show up to save Dumbledore on the tower? I think it points to the idea that the tower events were well planned out and Dumbledore told Fawkes not to come to his aid. Just as he immobilized Harry to keep him out of harm's way and to keep him from interferring in what went on, Fawkes was not to play a role in the tower events.

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


wynnleaf - Jun 12, 2007 7:02 am (#1605 of 1629)
Edited Jun 12, 2007 8:03 am

Choices, it would at least mean that some of the tower events were planned. Dumbledore would have communicated to Fawkes to stay put and not rescue him. That would mean that Dumbledore expected an attempt on his life and he would not want Fawkes to rush to help. However, that wouldn't necessarily mean that Dumbledore expected exactly what occurred on the tower (DEs and Fenrir).

Of course, my personal theory is that DD did expect the DEs (although not Fenrir). But DD telling Fawkes to not rescue him wouldn't be an indicator of that, only that DD knew that would be the night that Draco would attempt to kill him, and also, probably, that DD would allow someone to AK him.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 12, 2007 7:08 am (#1606 of 1629)
Edited Jun 12, 2007 8:09 am

I agree with Wynnleaf. Between Dumbledore freezing Harry instead of Draco, and the mysterious absence of Fawkes, I think it points to Dumbledore wanting a confrontation with Draco. It doesn't mean his plan went as expected, but it does point to him having a plan.

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


TwinklingBlueEyes - Jun 12, 2007 7:14 am (#1607 of 1629)

But DD telling Fawkes to not rescue him ... This is what I have always felt. Either Dumbledore sent Fawkes away that night or instructed him as you suggest Wynnleaf, to stay away. If either were the case, I think Fawkes would have disobeyed and have been there. He is my explaination for the moments "hanging" before the fall. Fawkes, in his invisable state caught and lowered Dumbledore. As close as Dumbledore and Fawkes were, I cannot, under any circumstance see Fawkes not being there in the end. Just my feelings...

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


PatPat - Jun 12, 2007 4:19 pm (#1608 of 1629)

He is my explaination for the moments "hanging" before the fall. Fawkes, in his invisable state caught and lowered Dumbledore. As close as Dumbledore and Fawkes were, I cannot, under any circumstance see Fawkes not being there in the end. Just my feelings... TBE

Hmmmm. Interesting theory, TBE. It is true that Phoenixes can disappear and reappear at will, according to Fantastic Beasts. This is a definite possibility.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Jun 13, 2007 6:44 am (#1609 of 1629)

Okay, I'm intrigued. What's the point of lowering him, if he was dying anyway? Jo did confirm he was dead. The question is how as I see it personally, not if, and always has been.

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


TwinklingBlueEyes - Jun 13, 2007 6:50 am (#1610 of 1629)

What's the point of lowering him, if he was dying anyway?

If for nothing else but respect?

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


Choices - Jun 13, 2007 8:43 am (#1611 of 1629)
Edited Jun 13, 2007 9:43 am

TBE - "Fawkes, in his invisable state caught and lowered Dumbledore."

One little nit-picky detail......we have never seen Fawkes grab someone with his talons/claws and carry them. Both times we have seen Fawkes carry a person or persons, they grabbed onto his tail feathers and hung on as he flew them away or disappeared with them - Harry, Ron, Ginny and Lockhart from the COS (they grabbed his "strangely hot" tailfeathers) and Dumbledore from his office when he had to escape the Aurors and Fudge. I have to say I don't think Fawkes was involved in the tower events at all. Only his lament was heard after Dumbledore's death.

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


wynnleaf - Jun 13, 2007 11:24 am (#1612 of 1629)

If Fawkes had been there at the tower scene, even if out of sight, wouldn't he have tried to heal DD? And if DD was truly dead at that moment, why wouldn't the phoenix start his lament at that time, rather than waiting so long?

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


journeymom - Jun 13, 2007 12:09 pm (#1613 of 1629)

What's the point of lowering him, if he was dying anyway?

Hoping that Harry's cave potion didn't kill Dd, hoping that Snape's AK wasn't really an AK, Fawkes lowering Dd to the ground will safeguard Snape's soul. Because even if the AK didn't kill Dd, the fall to the ground would have killed him.

I dunno, how would we find out that Fawkes had done this? It's a bit over- complicated.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 14, 2007 8:38 am (#1614 of 1629)

I have to agree with Wynnleaf and Choices. There is no evidence that Fawkes was there. We've never seen Fawkes invisible. He can do a special Phoenix Apparition with a burst of flame. He can fly, and maybe he could have caught Dumbledore, but then where did the limbs at odd angles and blood come from? And why the delayed lament? I have to agree with Journeymom that it is overcomplicated. What would be the literary point if we can't see it happen?

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


Steve Newton - Jun 14, 2007 9:05 am (#1615 of 1629)

We've never "seen" Fawkes invisible. Um? scratch

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


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 14, 2007 9:10 am (#1616 of 1629)

Yeah, I couldn't think of a better way to say it. "Seen".

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


Choices - Jun 14, 2007 9:12 am (#1617 of 1629)
Edited Jun 14, 2007 10:16 am

We have certainly seen Fawkes disappear, but I think what was meant is that we have not seen him invisible where we know he is there, but we can't see him. When he disappeared with Dumbledore from Dumbledore's office, he was literally gone, not just hanging around and we just couldn't see him. The times we have heard phoenix song or Fawkes' lament, he may not have been invisible (we weren't told that he was), perhaps just off sitting in a tree somewhere. I just don't believe there is anything in canon to indicate that Fawkes is hanging around in an invisible state.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 14, 2007 9:19 am (#1618 of 1629)

Yes, that's what I meant, Choices. Thank you for stating it clearly. I think Steve was just teasing me for saying we've never seen something that's been invisible. Of course we haven't. My brain just refuses to make sensible sentences sometimes.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Jun 17, 2007 5:09 pm (#1619 of 1629)
Edited Jun 17, 2007 6:11 pm

Wiggenweld potion is listed as the antidote to Draught of Living Death on one of the Famous Witches cards. The Lexicon lists flobberworm mucus as the only ingredient that is known. What I found interesting is that Snape had Harry sort out rotten ones from good ones as punishment in chapter 11 of HBP. Demelza gave Harry the message (about the detention) and even says it's for potions. Was Snape planning on making Wiggenweld potion? Why would Snape choose that sort of punnishment when he is no longer potions instuctor? Hmm I found this very interesting. If not Dumbledore, who else would need the antidote?

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


Nathan Zimmermann - Jun 17, 2007 8:34 pm (#1620 of 1629)

Madame Pomfrey, perhaps one of the six D.A. members who fought at the DoM or Hogwarts might have need of the potion in DH?

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


wynnleaf - Jun 18, 2007 4:09 am (#1621 of 1629)
Edited Jun 18, 2007 5:11 am

Madame Pomfrey, that is a very, very interesting observation! Could you post where that comment is made?

I have thought since HBP came out that DoLD was almost certainly in play in that book, but we wouldn't find out how until DH. I don't think there's ever been a time when JKR gave so much attention to a potion, spell, magical device, etc. and didn't use it within the climactic scenes of the book. I really do think DoLD must have been in use. And now here's this tiny clue that perhaps Snape was brewing the anecdote to it. Very fascinating.

As regards Nathan's suggestion, I think that if Snape was brewing the anecdote, it would have been for a known need, not just in general for some possible need in the future. Possible uses of DoLD during DH -- that is, a need for DoLD that wasn't already known by Snape -- wouldn't explain why he would be brewing the anecdote in HBP.

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


Mrs Brisbee - Jun 18, 2007 4:34 am (#1622 of 1629)

I've always been sure that DoLD would show up as a major plot point, but I don't think it figured into Dumbledore's death. Perhaps DoLD is what the Order was using to fake people's deaths for the Wizarding Protection program. I think we will see DoLD play a part in Deathly Hallows. If Rowling wanted to remind everyone about the antidote to it, though, she missed the perfect opportunity with the WOMBAT.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Jun 18, 2007 6:03 am (#1623 of 1629)
Edited Jun 18, 2007 7:03 am

Wynnleaf, unfortunatly I can't provide links. On the Lexicon, under Potions is the Alphabet and Films/Games. Films and Games lead you to Wiggenweld. Flobberworms are found as an ingredient in Wiggenweld in the CoS and PoA games.

HBP (Scholastic edition) Chapter11 Hermione's helping Hand. Demelza to Harry "He says your to come to detention-er-no matter how many party invitations you've recieved.And he wanted you to know you'll be sorting out rotten flobberworms from good ones,to use in Potions and- and he says there's no need to bring protective gloves."

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


journeymom - Jun 18, 2007 10:18 am (#1624 of 1629)
Edited Jun 18, 2007 11:32 am

What does wiggen mean? Weld means "world", in German, right?

A search on Wiggenweld in the Lex comes up with:

In the Wizarding world, dittany is a healing agent, one which can, if applied quickly, prevent scarring (HBP24). It is a potion ingredient in the video games, used to create Wiggenweld, a healing potion.

Famous wizard card: "Leticia Somnolens, Medieval, dates unknown This spiteful hag was jealous of the king's daughter and caused her to prick her finger on a spindle tainted with a Draught of the Living Death. A young wizard who had smeared his lips with Wiggenweld potion kissed the princess and brought her out of her trance."

* * * * *
No, welt means world, not weld.

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


Die Zimtzicke - Jun 18, 2007 5:53 pm (#1625 of 1629)

I don't think wiggen is German, but wiegen is close, and it means to weigh.

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


Madame Pomfrey - Jun 18, 2007 5:55 pm (#1626 of 1629)

Journeymom,the only thing I could find is that Wiggen is a very rare sirname.I have found the rest of the ingredients to the Wiggenweld potion and will take it to the potions thread.

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


Suuz Smith - Jun 19, 2007 4:59 am (#1627 of 1629)

Here's a thought- if Dumbledore had faked his death by using the Draught, he would need someone to administer the antidote. I doubt it would be Hagrid, as he came on the scene of DD's "death" with Harry and really did seem shocked-we know he's not a great actor or secret keeper.

So, as I have posited before, how about Aberforth as a conspirator? Snape is no longer around and all the rest of the professors and Order members we meet also seem totally shocked about DD. Doesn't JKR say something about being properly introduced to someone in DH that we have only met indirectly? I would bet it's Aberforth, and that he will tell us a lot about Dumbledore, once it's safe to do so or necessary.

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


Paul Potter - Jul 20, 2007 7:55 am (#1628 of 1629)

Hi! J.K.R. was on BBCs Blue Peter and was asked if DD was really dead and she said that he was truly and definitely dead.

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


wynnleaf - Jul 20, 2007 11:09 am (#1629 of 1629)

Hi! J.K.R. was on BBCs Blue Peter and was asked if DD was really dead and she said that he was truly and definitely dead. (Paul Potter)

Which in no way means that the incidents on the tower were just as they appear on the surface.
Lady Arabella
Lady Arabella
Prefect
Prefect

Posts : 2531
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA

Back to top Go down

Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?  - Page 3 Empty Re: Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum