Home
Latest images
Register
Log inDumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3 • 
1, 2, 3
Posts 601 to 625
Lady Arabella Wed May 18, 2011 8:45 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 9:33 am (#601 of 1629)
Annie- I'm willing to bet the water would have disappeared before it reached DD's mouth if Harry had tried from the wand. LV clearly wanted the lake water consumed. I'm not at all sure the water revived DD, I think Harry's being dragged toward the water gave DD a boost of adrenaline.
I do think a couple of drops of the lake water (Draught)trickled into DD's mouth. Just enough to make him sleepy, and eventually succumb.
M pomfrey-Well, I originally had Slughorn involved (dramatic but inaccurate touches to DD's body, and he shows up flustered and sweating to DD's office, what's he been doing?) If that is the case, I have to assume Sluggy can recognize Draught symptoms and can revive DD. Harry was convinced on some level that he needed to get DD and Snape together and all would be fine. Sluggy may do.
That still leaves Jo telling us he's definitely dead. Possible loopholes (mentioned by many):
1) Draught counts, but then is DD revived?
2) Not dead in Book 6 but now dead in 7 (that would be worse than killing him in 6)
3) Not dead, but isn't Jo writing as part of 7, what happens to the main characters post book 7? Could she get away with saying DD is definitely dead July 2006, if he dies in the postscript she has already written before July 2006?
I think if it is #3, the only way many will forgive Jo is if she points out that we all needed to think DD was dead for book 7 to work. She has planned this for 16 years, so I'd cut her some slack.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 10:36 am (#602 of 1629)
DRAT! Too late to edit above.
I think Jo may have felt compelled to squash the rumor that DD was alive, after her bizarre answer to the 9 year old at Radio City. She may have felt she said too much and, as I mentioned above, perhaps DD being thought dead is critical to book 7.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 1, 2006 11:22 am (#603 of 1629)
I think Jo may have felt compelled to squash the rumor that DD was alive, after her bizarre answer to the 9 year old at Radio City. She may have felt she said too much and, as I mentioned above, perhaps DD being thought dead is critical to book 7.
T Vrana,
You might be correct. The answer to Rushdie came just minutes after the answer to the 9 year old. But if the answer to the 9 year old had been the only one, it would have sounded very strongly like Dumbledore really dies in book 7. Why else would the answer to Dumbledore's "death" be in book 7 and why else could she not say that Dumbledore wasn't one of the new deaths planned for book 7.
I think it's so interesting that people that think DD died by the obvious actions in HBP, can hear JKR say that we'll find out about his being dead or not in book 7 and not Really Wonder. I mean, the funeral's already occurred! Why didn't she just say, from the very first, "DD's dead and buried" -- if, of course, that were really the case. Why do we need to find out DD is dead in book 7, if everything was so clear in HBP? Because JKR knew it wasn't clear, since she intentionally added in all those peculiar circumstances.
By the way, if DD is one of those two originally unscheduled deaths, that makes me really wonder if JKR had actually intended him to make it through, but the intensity of the public reaction was so great that she felt she had to kill him off. But she'd already set up all the mechanisms (all those odd things at the end of HBP) to have him live, so now she has to show in Book 7 what all those oddities mean, yet still have DD die.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Weeny Owl - Nov 1, 2006 12:03 pm (#604 of 1629)
“but he has never not acknowledged Harry, to my knowledge”
He sort of did at least once. During GoF when Rita printed his bio and he hid in his hut, he wouldn't answer the door at all. I'd have to go back and read PoA again, but it sticks in the back of my mind that when he was crying one time he wouldn't acknowledge anyone.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 12:23 pm (#605 of 1629)
weeny owl- You are correct, but that was out of embarrassment and sadness for himself. Hagrid and Harry have both suffered a loss here, and it is a little strange that Hagrid makes no effort to comfort Harry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 1, 2006 2:53 pm (#606 of 1629)
T, If LV really wanted the wizard who managed to get to the basin to drink the lake water two things must be remembered. The first being the wizard would be alone and have no help. This is understood by the way the boat was designed to register only the power of one wizard. Second, if a lone wizard made it to the basin could he manage to drain it and still have strength to drink water? Must be that way because RAB leaves a note and has the real locket. If that were the case then the lake water doesn't revive DD; the potion in the basin wears off a bit leaving the wizard able to get to the lake, or in this case the potion wears off and Harry is there to give DD the lake drink.The "water" in the lake then has an additional effect on the wizard who drinks it. Possibilities do seem to be quite varied!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 4:56 pm (#607 of 1629)
Hi, Annie-
Had DD been alone I believe two things could have happened:
1) He would struggle on, slowly, and eventually drain the basin (not likely)
2) He would have stopped, but still been thirsty and had the same reaction, drink lake water, deal with inferi. Otherwise, if he were permitted to leave, LV's secret could be spread and a way around the traps could be devised (like take a bezoar next time).
DD was up on his feet once Harry was in trouble, and he made it all the way back to Hogwarts, so I think he could have made it to the edge for a drink if he had been alone.
I really don't think the possibilities are that varied. LV was rather clever in his plan. Each step taken by the intruder led to another step designed, in my opinion, to do exactly what DD predicted, keep the intruder around for questioning. The lake, Draught of Living Death, to keep the intruder preserved for questioning, but out of site (Inferi takes intruder into lake), in case he did get the horcrux.
Just MHO...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 1, 2006 4:58 pm (#608 of 1629)
wynnleaf --I think it's so interesting that people that think DD died by the obvious actions in HBP, can hear JKR say that we'll find out about his being dead or not in book 7 and not Really Wonder. I mean, the funeral's already occurred! Why didn't she just say, from the very first, "DD's dead and buried" -- if, of course, that were really the case. Why do we need to find out DD is dead in book 7, if everything was so clear in HBP? Because JKR knew it wasn't clear, since she intentionally added in all those peculiar circumstances.—
Well, I can't speak for everyone who thinks things were pretty well laid out and happened as they appear to, but as for me, I read the questions and answers differently than you seem to have.
“Cory Mayer: My name's Cory Mayer and I'm 9 years old.... In a recent interview you hinted at two main characters dying and possibly Harry Potter too. Was Dumbledore considered one of the main characters or will we have the chance to see him in action once again? Since he is the most powerful wizard of all time and Harry Potter is so loyal to him, how could he really be dead?
JK Rowling: Ohhhhhhhh (Jo puts her head in her arms and crowd cheers and applauds). I feel terrible (crowd laughs). The British writer Graham Green once said that every writer had to have a chip of ice in their heart. Oh no (Jo says half weeping while crowd laughs). I think you may just have ruined my career (crowd laughs). Umm, I really can't answer that question because the answer is in book seven but ... you shouldn't expect Dumbledore to do a Gandalf. Let me just put it that way. I'm sorry (crowd moans and applauds).”
See, to me, the question she's answering "I really can't answer that... the answer is in book seven" to is "will we have the chance to see him in action once again?". The reason being that she follows her answer with "you shouldn't expect Dumbledore to do a Gandalf". I don't think she's answering the "Was Dumbledore considered one of the main characters [who you hinted at would die]" as some in the "there's a puzzle about whether DD's dead or not" camp seem to (that's the way the argument seems to be going, in my view, anyway).
”Salman and Milan Rushdie: Hello. We are Salman and Milan Rushdie (crowd applauds).... Until the events of Volume 6, it was always made plain that Snape might have been an unlikable fellow but he was essentially one of the good guys (crowd screams approval).... Dumbledore himself - Dumbledore himself had always vouched for him.... Now we are suddenly told that Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killer.... We cannot, or don't want to believe this (crowd laughs). Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy (crowd applauds). From which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead and that the death is a ruse cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry and Voldemort come face to face (crowd laughs). Harry may have more allies than he or Voldemort suspects. So, is Snape good or bad? (crowd laughs, applauds and screams and Jo chuckles). In our opinion, everything follows from it.
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)
I read this to say that "Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy" is the opinion that JKR says is "right". She says she needs to clarify that Dumbledore is dead because Salman followed with "From which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead...". As I don't think she was answering the "Was Dumbledore considered one of the main characters [who you hinted at would die]" question from above, I think she felt the need to clarify that Dumbledore was in fact dead because she realized that she hadn't answered that question and that, if she didn't, she'd see a lot more questions and theories that start with "From which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead...".
That's the way I read it, and why I don't think it points to anything. Others who feel that Dumbledore died the way JKR says he did in HBP may or may not have read the questions the same way that I did.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 6:17 pm (#609 of 1629)
SE- I don't think Jo was saying that Rushdie was right that Snape was a good guy. She has tried too hard to get us to think, in HBP, that he's not. I think the opinion she was agreeing to was "is Snape good or bad, everything follows from it."
And while I admit DD's chances seem bleak, I agree with Wynnleaf about all the inconsistencies.
There are really only three possibilities, I think:
1) DD is not dead
2) DD is dead, but Jo wanted us to wonder for a while (not nice, really)
3) Jo was sloppy (don't think so, odd bits were definitely choices)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nathan Zimmermann - Nov 1, 2006 6:50 pm (#610 of 1629)
S.E., I tend to agree - I do not think Dumbledore's death and Snape's inherent goodness are intrinsically or inextricably connected.
I think that the exchanges posted were intended to demonstrate the following two ideas:
1. Dumbledore is dead and unlike Gandalf will not reappear in a bodily form.
and
2. Severus Snape has within himself, albeit buried quite deeply, a spark of goodness that allows for the reader to hope for his redemption.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 7:03 pm (#611 of 1629)
Tried to edit previous, too late:
You know, Jo went on to say we need to get on with grieving, get past denial and get angry. When Rushdie said, basically, if Snape is good DD's not dead, I think this, coupled with the answer to the 9 year old presented a problem for Jo for book 7. She wants us to believe DD is dead and Snape did it so we can get angry.
For 6 years we were all unsure about Snape, and Jo was amazed anyone could like him. Now, at the end of year 6 we see Snape for what he truly is, an evil, murdering, double-crossing DE. Now Harry hates Snape even more than LV. But most of us just don't buy it. Rushdie nailed it.
I can't help but think she is perhaps a little disappointed that we are not accepting that DD is dead, and that Snape is truly evil, 'cause, darn it, it’s so important to what Harry has to do in book 7. I think she wants us, like Harry, to hate Snape and want him to kill Snape, when in fact, Harry will need to discover that Snape is not totally evil, will need to see the good in him (what little there is), will need to forgive him, and perhaps atone a bit for what James did. He will need to see Snape with Lily's eyes. But if we are already on that page, Jo loses one of her surprises tied to her themes of love, choices and redemption.
Does that make any sense?
Edit- Nathan, I didn't see any attempt on Jo's part to make us think anything good of Snape in that exchange. Just the opposite, she agreed with Rushdie's assessment, if Snape is good DD can't be dead, and conversely if DD is dead Snape is bad. Which is why I think she chose that moment to say DD dead, to affirm Snape is bad. She went on to say get angry. At whom? Snape.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 1, 2006 7:05 pm (#612 of 1629)
Nathan, I completely agree with your two points. That is exactly what I got out of the interview.
T Vrana, I was only stating the way I read the interview to answer Wynnleaf's question about how someone could read what was said and still think things happened the way they appear to HBP. I, being in the camp that doesn't think the puzzle relates to whether or not Dumbledore is really dead or if Snape really killed him, don't see inconsistencies because of the way I read the interview.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 7:11 pm (#613 of 1629)
SE- I was referring to the inconsistencies in HBP, not the exchanges between Jo, 9 year old, and Rusdie. Guess I wasn't very clear. I was addressing two things, Radio City and the oddities in HBP.
EDIT-
”Rushdie: So, is Snape good or bad? (crowd laughs, applauds and screams and Jo chuckles). In our opinion, everything follows from it.
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)
Note that Jo agrees with Rushdie's opinion, but the first time he used this word was at the end, Is Snape good or bad? In our opinion, everything follows from it.
Jo agrees to this, and immediately launches into DD is dead. From this I would gather Jo wants us to conclude Snape is bad. Especially since she follows it up by telling us to get angry. (And Rushdie was equating good with alive moments before).
I really think Jo was only responding to the opinion part, not the entire question by Rushdie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nathan Zimmermann - Nov 1, 2006 7:31 pm (#614 of 1629)
T Vrana, I respectfully disagree because, I do not think she would resolve the question of Snape being good or bad in so clear cut a manner in an interview, I tend to think that question will only be resolved with finality in book seven.
As to the inconsistencies in HBP there are many yet not all of them point to Severus being so inherently bad that he is beyond redemption.
There are several points that would tend to indicate a trace of goodness:
1. He participated in saving Katie Bell's life
2. Severus attempted to teach Harry even while dueling with him.
3. Snape ordered the Death Eaters to leave Harry behind instead of kidnapping him and taking him to the Dark Lord.
4. Someone saved him from being mauled by Greyback.
5. Severus healed Draco. He could have left him wounded it is by no means certain Draco would have died.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 7:41 pm (#615 of 1629)
Nathan- I agree that it will not be resolved until book 7. But I do think Jo would like us to lean toward bad. She didn't actually say Snape is bad, but she certainly phrased her answer to lean that way.
”Yes, it all depends on whether Snape is good or bad, and by the way DD's dead.’ (obvious paraphrase)
Definitive, no. Hinting, yes. Misleading, yes! I don't think Snape is all bad, and she didn't say he was. But she did link two things together that suggest it, I think.
EDIT- Nathan, you added to you post! I agree with all you say about Snape. I DO think he is not all bad, but I think Jo wants us to think he's bad.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 1, 2006 7:45 pm (#616 of 1629)
While I agree with Nathan that the actual answer to whether Snape is good or bad will only be resolved in Book 7, I also agree with T Vrana that she wants us to believe Snape is evil by the end of HBP.
But if we are already on that page, Jo loses one of her surprises tied to her themes of love, choices and redemption.--
It's like knowing that Dumbledore was going to die, people are going to guess it who have a fair background with literature. As I have said previously, prior to HBP, I had suggested a theory that Snape would give DD the Draught of Living Death and thus appear to Harry to have killed DD. I don't think the Draught part is still true, but I always figured she'd want us to hate Snape so that his redemption will be all that more of a surprise, it is a similar technique to making it seem like the bad guys win in HBP so that we're even more enthralled when the good guys win in Book 7. It comes as no surprise to me that JKR wants things to happen this way. The thing to remember is that this forum is made up of some very well educated people, who obsess over the material and debate about all the possibilities, which means that, just because it seems so completely obvious to us (and so we think that's not the way JKR is going to go) it doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone who reads these books.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 1, 2006 8:03 pm (#617 of 1629)
Okay, say for a minute Snape is evil and killed Dumbledore. As strong as the theme of redemption is, if Snape is evil the question them remains, can HE be redeemed? I see more people thinking Malfoy or Pettigrew can be redeemed than Snape some days but it does vary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
]Nathan Zimmermann - Nov 1, 2006 8:33 pm (#618 of 1629)
I tend to think that most of characters save Voldemort, are capable of redemption or being redeemed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 1, 2006 8:38 pm (#619 of 1629)
Nathan, one problem with Snape is that almost everything he does can be taken two ways.
He participated in saving Katie Bell's life
And why wouldn't he? He's a double agent, working for Dumbledore and Voldemort. He wants to keep his cover. Even if evil, Katie dying gains him nothing, so no big deal if he spends a little effort saving her.
Severus attempted to teach Harry even while dueling with him.
Teaching, or gloating?
Snape ordered the Death Eaters to leave Harry behind instead of i kidnapping him and taking him to the Dark Lord.
Apparently, though, the Dark Lord wants Harry left alone for reasons known only to the Dark Lord. Snape made it clear he was acting under orders.
Someone saved him from being mauled by Greyback.
Harry saved himself. Snape and Draco had already disappeared when that happened.
Severus healed Draco. He could have left him wounded it is by no means certain Draco would have died.
Why would he want to risk Draco's life, a blown cover, and possibly dropping dead because of that stupid Unbreakable Vow just to prove his evil macho-ness?
I do wonder why Snape saved Dumbledore's life with the blackened hand deal, especially considering that Rowling decides Snape will kill him anyway a year later. That is odd.
As strong as the theme of redemption is, if Snape is evil the question them remains, can HE be redeemed?-- Die Zimtzicke
I always have trouble with the whole redemption thing when it involves murder. How can you ever make it up to the person you killed? How can you ever know that you've made it up to the person you killed? I believe the evildoer needs to want to set things right, to try some form of restitution. So I guess that's a "no" from me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 1, 2006 9:24 pm (#620 of 1629)
I wanted to edit my post above, but it seems I'm too late!
Anyway, I just wanted to add that even if redemption isn't possible, that shouldn't stop the person who truly wants it from trying. It's like Harry coming out from behind the gravestone to face Voldemort in GoF-- sometimes it's just not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. If someone really regretted their evil ways, they wouldn't be changing sides just to "win" redemption, but because it was the right thing to do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 1, 2006 10:07 pm (#621 of 1629)
Die Zimtzicke --As strong as the theme of redemption is, if Snape is evil the question them remains, can HE be redeemed?—
Who said Snape was really evil? I think he's decidedly neutral. I think that Dumbledore died for Snape (because of the Vow) and that will allow him to be redeemed in some way. Snape is a character that I think JKR has tried very hard to keep in the grey. Every time he does something good, he mixes it with something bad. For example, he risks his life to come save Harry from the escaped murderer Sirius Black but then, when Black agrees to come without argument, seems he's going to take him straight to the Dementors instead of Dumbledore just for revenge. She's purposely trying to make us guess, right up ‘til the end of HBP where she wants us to go "oh, so he really is evil!". She's said before that he has a redemptive quality to him, showed us he's at least capable of doing something good so, while I think she wants us to believe he's evil, her showing him doing "good" is a sign that there's still hope for him, in the very end.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 1, 2006 10:08 pm (#622 of 1629)
his evil macho-ness Lolol! I love it!
Announcing His Evil Machoness, Severus Snape the First.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 6:30 am (#623 of 1629)
Why does Snape have to be evil if he killed Dumbledore?
Snape can still be a good guy if Dumbledore told him that if he has to choose between killing Dumbledore & blowing his cover, he has to go ahead and kill Dumbledore - as distasteful as it may seem to him and despite the position it puts Snape in.
I think that is what Hagrid overheard. Snape didn't want to be the double agent anymore. Let me come clean and be on your side. Things are escalating and I don't want to be a part of it anymore.
Dumbledore says sorry about your luck. You agreed to do this and there is something greater at stake here than your comfort and your reputation.
Hence his anger when Harry calls Snape a coward.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Nov 2, 2006 7:11 am (#624 of 1629)
I think it is wrong to use the term "redeemed" regarding Snape. Snape will not change in book seven. What will change is Harry's, and our, interpretation of Snape's actions and character.
We saw this in SS. Harry thought Snape was trying to kill him by hexing his broom, but it was really Quirell trying to kill him and Snape countering Quirell's curse on Harry's broom.
Book seven will reveal a similar pattern for Snape's actions. We will discover that Snape has been an unsung hero since he joined the fight against Voldemort. He has devoted his entire life to that cause.
Only Dumbledore knew the extent of Snape's commitment to the cause of destroying Voldemort. And, only Dumbledore knew the reason for it. Dumbledore trusted Severus Snape. We got hit over the head with that. Even Lupin trusted Snape because Dumbledore did.
I only wonder how JKR will reveal Snape's true character to Harry. Even after Harry is convinced Snape is on his side, he still won't "like" Snape. Snape will not suddenly become "likable."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 2, 2006 8:04 am (#625 of 1629)
Why does Snape have to be evil if he killed Dumbledore?
Haymoni, I think the meaning here is that idea that in this particular series of books, JKR would only write Snape actually killing DD if Snape was evil. Certainly, the character and the situations could include the possibility that a loyal Snape could kill DD, just as loyal Harry could have killed DD with the cave liquids. The question is whether JKR would do it. I think that's what Rushdie meant, when he said that if DD is dead, Snape must be evil -- because I think Rushdie was coming from the perspective that in JKR's books, she wouldn't have "good" Snape kill his good leader. Of course, we all realize that some of us think this, and others don't. But I don't think (could be wrong), that anyone thinks it would be impossible for a loyal lieutenant to kill his leader because he had to.
I think it is wrong to use the term "redeemed" regarding Snape. Snape will not change in book seven. What will change is Harry's, and our, interpretation of Snape's actions and character.
Soul Search, I strongly agree with this. If Snape has been loyal throughout, then he has already done far and away enough to "redeem" himself. If he's been loyal all along, the question isn't "will Snape be redeemed?" but "will Harry understand that Snape is redeemed?"
If he's been loyal ever since his supposed turning away from LV, then the biggest evidence we have of his evilness is joining LV in the first place as a very young man, his taking the partial prophecy to LV, and his later attitudes in the classroom with his sarcasm, insults, and sometimes unfairness. If he worked for years and risked his life to make up for the wrong he did as a young man, then the main stuff he has to be "redeemed" for is being a sarcastic, insulting, and sometimes unfair teacher -- which in the large scheme of things isn't much compared to all the other evil going on in HP. That's particularly true if while being a sarcastic, insulting and unfair teacher, he's also been protecting the same students to whom he's been most verbally mean.
I completely agree with Soul Search's entire post. Particularly, I think Harry will need to learn that being loyal, and on the right side, doesn't mean "being nice to Harry" or "someone Harry likes." Harry will hopefully come to see that it's actually possible for him to thoroughly dislike a person, and for that person to thoroughly dislike Harry, and that person is still admirable and fighting for the same cause.
I guess this belongs on the Snape thread, but I really liked Soul Search's post here.
Last edited by Lady Arabella on Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 626 to 650
Lady Arabella Wed May 18, 2011 8:49 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 2, 2006 8:46 am (#626 of 1629)
Maybe this does belong on the Snape thread, but I don't know if Snape is "already" redeemed even if he has been loyal to the cause. There are two things going on here, first the harm that Snape did generally to the wizarding world by joining up with Voldemort, and second the personal harm he did to the individual persons he wronged. The first he might be redeemed for by working for the Order and remaining loyal to Dumbledore, but the second is really for only those persons he harmed to decide. Lily and James aren't exactly going to pop up and say "Good show, mate! Everything's cool!" Harry at least deserves an explanation and apology for being left orphaned (and nearly murdered himself... multiple times).
Book seven will reveal a similar pattern for Snape's actions. We will discover that Snape has been an unsung hero since he joined the fight against Voldemort. He has devoted his entire life to that cause.
I agree that this is the way a lot of us expect the story to go. Even though I dislike Snape, I was completely convinced he was on the Good Guys' side up to the Tower scene. Even afterwards I get the feeling that there was some sort of fix going on. But I also couldn't avoid the conclusion that Snape AKed Dumbledore. And the Half-Blood Prince book and the Flight of the Prince were disturbing. I really haven't seen any scenarios with either “Snape Good” or ”Snape Bad” that provide a satisfactory explanation for everything that was happening, though “Snape Evil” works better.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nathan Zimmermann - Nov 2, 2006 9:39 am (#627 of 1629)
The reason I used the terms redemptive and redemption to describe Severus is because, J.K. Rowling has used those terms in the past. For a more detailed response see my post in this thread Nathan Zimmermann, "+ Severus Snape" #571, 2 Nov 2006 9:22 am.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 2, 2006 9:51 am (#628 of 1629)
Nathan,
The interview you mentioned was referring back to a much earlier interview with JKR in which the interviewer used the term "redemptive" and JKR sort of went along with it. If you actually listen to that earlier interview on audio, JKR seems to be more agreeing with other aspects of the question, although not denying a redemptive quality to Snape, which she also does not deny in the questions/answers you had in the linked post.
However, in the interview you quoted, JKR seems more focused on Draco as possible redemptive material.
In any case, I'm not trying to say there's not a redemptive pattern to Snape, or that JKR hasn't sort of given a nod in that direction, but more that if he has always been loyal, the redemptive aspect has already taken place, or has been in the process all along.
By the way, it's more a philosophical question, but to respond to Mrs Brisbee, I don't think a person's redemption necessarily requires the forgiveness of the one's injured. There are some who will absolutely never forgive, regardless of circumstances, but I don't think that dooms the person seeking redemption. This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 9:53 am (#629 of 1629)
She used redemptive in the Melissa/Emerson interview right after HBP came out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 2, 2006 9:54 am (#630 of 1629)
She used redemptive in the Melissa/Emerson interview right after HBP came out.
Regarding Snape, someone else, or just in general?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 9:57 am (#631 of 1629)
haymoni-
Hence his anger when Harry calls Snape a coward. (for killing DD)
I don't want to beat a dead horse, here, but...
1) Several posters have agreed they think Snape knew Harry was on the Tower.
2) If this is true, then Snape would know Harry saw him 'AK' DD.
3) Fresh from this witnessed 'kill', Harry pursues Snape.
4) Harry calls Snape a coward. Very litle reaction, a sneering comment at most. Snape knows he's not a coward so he's not fussed, and he points out to Harry that James, his dad, was a coward.
Snape's interior monologue:(I'm not a coward, you little twit, I'm busy right now, but if you'd like to know who was a coward, it was your dad)
5) Harry tries using some of the Prince's spells on Snape. Snape gets peeved and lashes out at Harry. Starts ranting about James.
6) Harry says kill me like you killed him.
7) Snape loses it entirely.
8)Huh? He knew he had just 'killed' DD when the first coward was thrown out, and Harry saw it, but no reaction.
9) Now, a second coward is tossed out and Snape is seen as demented, inhuman, as trapped as Fang in a burning building.
10) If Snape knows he is not a coward, which he seemed to just moments before, why is he so fussed now? I think, because he does feel like a coward for something other than the supposed murder of DD.
11) Add to this that the only time Jo describes Snape in this over the top fashion, it relates to James getting himself and Lily killed, the 'guilty' secret keeper escaping, and Snape's Worst Memory, Snape calls Lily Mudblood.
12) What in the above relates to Snape feeling like a coward ('cause if he doesn't feel like a coward, he wouldn't be so upset!)?
This reaction, I think, is a much deeper, older wound than the Tower, and relates back to Snape's Life Debt, Snape's feelings for Lily, the Prophesy, and Snape's attempts and failures at trying to save James and Lily. He should have done more to save James and Lily, but he was afraid. That's why the second coward stings so badly.
If it was just about DD, the first coward would have elicited a bigger reaction, IMHO.
EDIT- Wynnleaf - I agree that redemption does not require forgiveness. There are some who would never forgive no matter what a person does to redeem themselves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 10:03 am (#632 of 1629)
wynnleaf - yes it was about Snape. Actually, I believe Emerson used the word to describe Snape and Jo reacted to it. I started a thread on that interview when it first came out and I believe there are links to the actual interview in there.
I agree that the "coward" is for his entire charade. You can't be a coward when you realize that you have made a mistake and you try to correct it. You can't be a coward and lie to Voldy. You can't be a coward and lie to all the Death Eaters. You can't be a coward and agree to kill your boss.
I truly think it was that Potter Brat talking about things that he knows nothing about that set Snape over the edge.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 10:12 am (#633 of 1629)
I truly think it was that Potter Brat talking about things that he knows nothing about that set Snape over the edge.
Perhaps, but it strikes me as very peculiar that the first coward elicited almost no reaction, whereas the second puts him in an inhuman, tormented state.
Snape has been dealing with his situation for years. Under suspicion by both sides, but he never loses his cool when either side question him. Now he 'kills' DD, Harry calls him a coward, and he's still not fussed. Then Harry calls him a coward a second time, and now, after all these years, he can't take it any more, he has to lash out. It doesn't add up for me. I don't think he cares what Harry thinks, at all. He is trusted by the two most powerful wizards in the world, who cares what Potter thinks? But he does care what he thinks about himself.
Something changed from coward #1 to coward #2,and I think it was the one thing that haunts Snape, he should have done more to save James/Lily. He was thinking James, while Harry was thinking DD.
Could be wrong...
EDIT-
When my kids complain that someone (usually their sibling) called them a name and it hurt their feelings, I ask what they were called. Whatever it is I ask them if they are that thing (let's pick "coward").
They say "No!!!!!" But the hurt is still there. Then I call them a truck. I get a confused look, but no hurt feelings.
'What?' they say.
You are a truck I say. More confusion. "Does that bother you?"
No, confused smile creeps in. "I'm not a truck."
Well, are you a coward?
Big smile, "No."
Snape's too old to need the truck comment. If he knew he was not a coward Harry's comment would not have gotten to him. So we have to ask why Snape believes he is a coward.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 10:36 am (#634 of 1629)
I've always thought Harry meant James when he said that.
It could be that as the chase went on, it was clear to Snape that he was truly going to have to give up his cushy life there at Hogwarts and be on the run and thought a Death Eater and a Dumbledore-murderer.
Harry was not letting up. Perhaps it was just all too much for Snape when he realized that once he went off the grounds, his life was over.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 10:37 am (#635 of 1629)
Haymoni- We cross posted, but my edit above relates.
I've always thought Harry meant James when he said that.
Too funny that we are on opposite sides on both!
Harry is wandless, and helpless just like DD was, so I thought he was relating to DD, not James.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 2, 2006 10:43 am (#636 of 1629)
I agree T. I had wondered about it taking two times of Harry calling him coward before he gets demented. Harry's use of his own spells against him seem to set him off, such as it reminded him of James doing the same. Note: Snape’s face was suffused with hatred as it had been before he had cursed Dumbledore. That parallel seems to indicate hatred of what James did rather than what he, himself had done. Although,it could be that Snape had hatred for himself for allowing himself to appear so weak in front of others.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 10:49 am (#637 of 1629)
I don't think Snape thinks he's a coward. Perhaps other people thought he was a coward and that whole name-calling, self-fulfilling prophesy plays into that.
If it turns out that Snape has all along been a double agent for the good guys, then I don't think there is a braver character in the books.
Just the comment in the hospital scene in GOF is enough to convince me of that. "You know what I must ask you to do..." Snape had to go to Voldy and lie his butt off.
If Voldy had any sense, he would have AK'd Snape in front of the rest of the DEs to teach them a lesson. But Voldy needed numbers and Snape is very talented and was certainly in a very useful position. Why not keep him around? I can always AK him later and blame it on Lucius.
There is something different about the second time Harry calls him a coward - he has tried to use dark spells on Snape, it is clear that Harry is trying to kill him or at least hurt him badly enough that he ends up dying. Harry is attacking him, but Snape really does nothing back to Harry. Even when he finally does go crazy and hurts Harry, Snape still is trying to teach him.
It's strange.
Alas, another reason to go back and re-read that chapter!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 10:55 am (#638 of 1629)
Haymoni- I agree Snape is very brave! But then why does the coward comment bother him? Harry is trying to use his spells, sure, but he gets a little angry and deflects them. It isn't until..
“Kill me like you killed him, you coward”
that he's not just angry, he's demented, tormented, out of control...
(and all his words go to capitals... )
The only other time Snape goes 'caps' is when James, Lily, and the bad secret keeper (thought at the time to be Black), are involved.
While Snape has been very brave, there is something that makes him sensitive to the coward comment, and usually we are only sensitive if we believe the criticism (even if we can't quite admit it to ourselves) or we care what the other person thinks about us. I don't think Snape cares what Harry thinks.
He does give him a magical 'backhand' after the second coward, I think.
It was the reread that got me...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 2, 2006 11:10 am (#639 of 1629)
He was thinking James, while Harry was thinking DD. I agree with this.
Also, it might be the culmination of *all* these reasons. James humiliated Snape with his own spells. Harry attempted to use his own spells. Snape regrets his cowardly response the night when LV went after the Potters. Snape is trying to fix his part in James' and Lily's death. No one acknowledges the danger he's been in for for 17 years spying for Dd. He's fed up with Harry. He's on the run for murdering his boss and friend (maybe). All of these would push him over the edge into a demented, inhuman reaction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 2, 2006 11:30 am (#640 of 1629)
I think the first "coward" comment was easy to dismiss. Harry said something like, "fight back, you coward!" That's sort of juvenile really. Anyway, it's not a personal affront to Snape and doesn't touch on anything other than the immediate present -- Snape is not fighting back, just deflecting Harry's spells.
But Harry's second comment, "kill me like you killed him, coward!" (or something to that effect), directly brings up Snape killing someone -- DD or James depending on how you read it and depending on how Snape took it. Either way, that remarks hits directly at something Snape must feel really bad about. Either Harry means or Snape thinks the comment is about DD, and he feels very badly about having to do that AK, OR Snape thinks Harry means James, and he feels really badly about that.
Regardless, I do think there's something in Snape's past that makes the "coward" label hurt very much when applied to a death for which he does feel some responsibility -- either DD or James, or even both.
I think Snape knows that he's not a coward. But I also think he knows that he's done things that make him appear to be a coward, so he's very, very sensitive about it. And there may be some aspect of the Potter's deaths where he feels like he should have done more to prevent that, but didn't.
I think Snape really is scared of LV -- and he should be. So if that played any part of what he did or didn't do regarding helping save James and Lily, then I imagine that would affect his feelings about being called "coward."
journeymom,
Exactly!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 2, 2006 12:49 pm (#641 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 2, 2006 12:50 pm
Leave off reading for a day and get plowed under by new posts to read and analyze. Why is this so enjoyable? Maybe we are all debators at heart!
Can't let go of the lake. I thought T Vranas comments back on post #607 about LV devising things to keep the wizard and horcrux trapped were spot on, but haven't many people posted a belief that the horcrux locket is at Grimmauld Place? Maybe RAB had help as well.
I also agree with Nathan's #614 post. I find it very hard to believe that JK would give us a definite answer to a plot line from book seven. She would not tell us now if Snape is good or bad. She will want us to wonder and wait and debate! But she does say DD is dead. We are still trying to see loopholes, but a statement is a statement isn't it? The mystery remains, though, if it was a plan, who is good or bad, etc.
And JK is so good that even with reading and rereading the fleeing Snape scene we can't decide who Snape is thinking about when he gets angry about Harry bringing up Snape's murdering someone (James or DD). Does Harry ever say to anyone that Snape killed his parents or just that Snape is responsible for their deaths?
T, Love the #633 post. I'll have to try that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 2, 2006 3:53 pm (#642 of 1629)
wynnleaf --Haymoni, I think the meaning here is that idea that in this particular series of books, JKR would only write Snape actually killing DD if Snape was evil.... I think that's what Rushdie meant, when he said that if DD is dead, Snape must be evil -- because I think Rushdie was coming from the perspective that in JKR's books, she wouldn't have "good" Snape kill his good leader.... If Snape has been loyal throughout, then he has already done far and away enough to "redeem" himself. If he's been loyal all along, the question isn't "will Snape be redeemed?" but "will Harry understand that Snape is redeemed?"—
This all assumes that Snape is either good or evil, not nuetral. I don't think we can say that Snape, according to what we've witnessed in these books, is all good or all evil (and "all" is what, to me, this line of thinking is implying). He doesn't just have to "redeem" himself to Harry, but to us, because we are Harry's shadow in JKR's world. He doesn't just need to "redeem" himself for being a git or a teacher, either. He's done some very bad things along with doing some very good ones. He risks his life to save Harry in PoA from Sirius and Lupin (that was good) but he also alludes to handing a surrendering Black straight over to the Dementors instead of taking him to Dumbledore (that was pretty evil). I know we can argue that he wouldn't have actually done it, but we don't know either way. That ambiguity and that dual nature was purposeful, on JKR's part, in my opinion so that we know that Snape is neither all good nor all evil, he's neither one side nor the other. Therefore, arguments that "if Dd's dead, then Snape's evil" or "if Snape's good, he didn't actually kill DD" don't really hold water, in my opinion. Even Rushdie seems to be sticking to the "all black or white" thinking in his question, which I think is intrinsically flawed thinking, especially in a genre that combines heroic epic and bildungsroman (I would argue that this series is far and away more the latter than the former).
P.S. Wynnleaf, I hope it didn't seem like I was picking at you in particular. It's just that you summed up many others' thoughts so well in your one post, that's why I quoted you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 4:12 pm (#643 of 1629)
SE- combines heroic epic and bildungsroman (I would argue that this series is far and away more the latter than the former).
I would have to argue back that really it is a fair mix. We have the epitome of goodness, true evil and an epic battle to come, mixed nicely with Harry's growth from boy to qualified wizard.
I agree Snape is neither good or evil, but for me that means he could not have killed DD. It would be an act of evil to kill the epitome of goodness, and, the epitome of goodness would not ask even a gray wizard to tear his soul. Its how you get the "epitome" part, by being really picky about being really good. Hence McGonogall's somewhat frustrated admiration when she comments that DD is too noble to use Dark Magic.
Otherwise DD would be the near pinnacle of goodness...
So what really happened....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 2, 2006 4:49 pm (#644 of 1629)
T Vrana --I would have to argue back that really it is a fair mix. We have the epitome of goodness, true evil and an epic battle to come, mixed nicely with Harry's growth from boy to qualified wizard.--
Bildungsroman also implies growth in terms of the hero taking his place within an established social system, but if the social system is at war, it can include establishing a new order within the social system (the good vs evil battle to end all battles), and in terms of the hero eventually internalizing the values and ethics of the social order, or the person who most exemplifies order to the hero (i.e. the mentor - Dumbledore) which goes a long way to establishing the hero as "good" or "evil" and also establishes the alignment of other characters as such as they are compared and contrasted with the hero. I say the genre is mostly bildungsroman because it is something that is a huge part of many other genres (such as heroic epic, high fantasy, military story lines, various other forms of drama, etc). Aspects of heroic epic isn't seen in a lot of other genres but bildungsroman is. See what I mean?
--I agree Snape is neither good or evil, but for me that means he could not have killed DD. It would be an act of evil to kill the epitome of goodness, and, the epitome of goodness would not ask even a gray wizard to tear his soul. Its how you get the "epitome" part, by being really picky about being really good. Hence McGonogall's somewhat frustrated admiration when she comments that DD is too noble to use Dark Magic.—
A grey wizard could most definitely do something very evil (like killing the good mentor) but could also still do something good to redeem himself afterward, that's why he's grey and not black or white. He'd have to combine an act of good with an act of retribution (he needs to suffer a consequence for his evil actions) to be truly redeemed in terms of the story.
I agree that the "epitome of goodness" (I really hate that title) wouldn't necessarily ask a grey wizard to kill him, or any wizard for that matter, simply as part of an established plan (i.e. "plan C, I need you to go to the tower and AK me"), but I could see him telling the grey wizard that it's okay to do what he needs to do to protect himself and someone else he cares for (sort of a "whatever you feel is right at the moment, I'll be okay with" or "if plans A and B fail, I'm alright with you doing what needs to be done"). I could also see the "epitome of goodness" saying, "if it comes to me or the innocent and you, you do what you have to to protect the innocent and yourself, even if that means killing me" (and this is what I think happened).
What makes the "good side” good, is the fact that it follows the rules (I'm referring to ethical rules here, i.e. they don't interfere with free will, they don't try to force someone into something with manipulation, they wouldn't deny someone the right to self-preservation, etc.), they embrace the concepts of self-sacrifice and love, they embrace and protect virtue and innocence, and they don't try to get around the natural order of things (i.e. they'd never make a Horcrux to escape death).
Dumbledore telling Snape to kill him only if he needs to protect young Draco and himself isn't telling him "tear your soul because that's what the plan calls for", it's telling him "I'm willing to sacrifice myself if I need to to protect what is good and innocent and to allow it to stay that way a little while longer" or "tear your soul if you need to to protect yourself and the innocent, I'm okay with dying", someone who is good may or may not agree to do it, but someone who is grey could.
We have to keep in mind that the "epitome of goodness" wouldn't deny someone the right to protect their own life or the life or a loved one; even if it's not the choice the "epitome", himself, would choose, he'd still respect the choice of another, it's all part of what makes him good.
I hope that slight rant made sense, I know I didn't phrase things very well.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 2, 2006 5:56 pm (#645 of 1629)
To clarify, I never said, "Snape is evil, can he be redeemed?"
I said, "As strong as the theme of redemption is, if Snape is evil the question then remains, can HE be redeemed?"
If he is evil is not the same thing as "He is evil.".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 6:44 pm (#646 of 1629)
SE- The epic nature of this series I feel is just as important as Harry's otherwise 'normal' growth from adolescent to adult. The novels I associate with bildungroman usually depicts this growth in settings that are more, ummm, real, less larger than life, purely good vs purely evil, etc. I think both genres play their part and are important to Jo's decisions.
I can agree that Snape can kill DD if he is grey (which I think he is), but he will have to pay with his life, ultimately.
I don't think Jo would put The Epitome of Goodness (sorry, but I like it!) in the position to ask to be killed. Run, hide, save yourself, but not murder. Just MHO....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 2, 2006 7:45 pm (#647 of 1629)
My whole point with the bildungsroman is that it is part of many genres, including heroic epic, high fantasy, etc, whereas the heroic epic isn't seen in that many other genres. Flour goes into chocolate cakes or on chicken, but chicken doesn't usually go in a chocolate cake. Yeah, bad example, but hopefully it gets across what I mean.
--I don't think Jo would put The Epitome of Goodness in the position to ask to be killed. Run, hide, save yourself, but not murder.—
So, I guess the way you look at it depends on what you think "please, Severus" refers to. If you think it is "please, Severus, kill me", I can see what you mean, but if you think it is "please, Severus, do what you need to to save yourself and the boy", I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for the "epitome of goodness". The "good" would never deny someone the right to defend themselves or their loved ones. Even Harry doesn't seem to hold it against Draco that he felt he needed to try to kill Dd out of fear of what Voldemort might do to his family.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 7:55 pm (#648 of 1629)
Part, yes. I think equally important.
I agree good would not deny someone the right to defend themselves, loved ones etc. That's why I said it was a choice Jo would not make. It could fit, just not in the context Jo has created.
It goes back to the argement, would Jo put Harry in the position of killing someone other than LV (and it remains to be seen if he'll do that). I don't think she would. Nor would she put the Epitome in the position to request Snape murder him. We could, for example, accept that Harry in his rage and hurt, tried an unforgivable in the MoM, on Bella, but Jo showed us that he doesn't have to heart (or really lack of) to do it. She gave Harry an out. There was an out on the tower, I think, we just don't know what it was yet.
Tired, hope that makes sense...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 3, 2006 1:30 am (#649 of 1629)
Just two aside comments;
I don't think Jo would put The Epitome of Goodness (sorry, but I like it!)
I like it too, T.
As a matter of fact, much of my viewpoint on every aspect of these books comes from that premise being true. I accepted it from the first time I read PS - exactly one year ago, by the way - and it has been a big factor in how I have seen the events, characters and messages (philosophical, ethical, etc.) of the whole series. This does not mean I think DD is perfect, as he is still a human being and there is no such a thing as a perfect human being. Still, when PS first came out (in the days when I wouldn't have anything to do with those Harry Potter children's books - hitting myself over the head repeatedly with a heavy lamp), Jo was interviewed by Evan Solomon of CBC tv and said then that the character of Albus Dumbledore represented the epitome of goodness. That is how she conceived him and how she chose to draw him.
Call me naive, but I believe her. I believe McGonagall and Binns when they said that DD was more than capable of doing Dark Magic, but wouldn't. Althogh I was/am horrified at how Snape treated Harry, Neville and other children as young as 11 - I call it no less than being sadistic; not just sarcastic, ironic, nasty, or what have you -, I have been willing to see some possible good in him (ie - that he really was working for the good guys although it put him in great danger) because I believe Hermoine, Lupin and Dumbledore himself when they say, "Dumbledore trusts Snape and I trust Dumbledore so I trust Snape" and, of course, "I trust Severus Snape completely."
All of the examples I gave above which I believe, are totally predicated on my conviction of Dumbledore being the "epitome of goodness." I may be proven wrong on this in Book Seven, of course. I may find that Jo lied to Evan Solomon (and others) when she made this definitive statement. But Book Seven is not out yet and, to date, I am still willing to believe.
So, I guess the way you look at it depends on what you think please, Severus" refers to." (S.E. Jones)
Exactly. It's really amazing, when you think of it, how much discussion, debate and thought those two little words have generated - on Lexicon Forum alone. What a tribute to Rowling!
Anyway, excuse the interruption.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 3, 2006 3:42 am (#650 of 1629)
Maybe it's the late hour, but I really don't see how any of what I suggested would take away from Dumbledore being the "epitome of goodness". I said he wouldn't deny someone else the right to defend themselves (I'm not talking about himself, but someone else) and he would be willing to sacrifice himself for another (Draco and Snape). If it had come down to the tower and Dumbledore had seen that it was either him or Draco and Snape and chose to defend himself, knockout the lot of them, and take off with Harry via Fawkes, which would mean that Draco, who by this point is still a possible innocent, would be killed by Voldemort and Snape would drop over dead because of the Vow, would he still be the "epitome of goodness"? I don't think so. That was my whole point about what makes the good side "good". Arguments about whether JKR would make Harry (or nearly any other Order member) do what she made Snape do are not viable arguments, in my opinion, because they are two very different characters with two very different outward loyalties. Harry (or nearly any other member of the Order) has a set of loyalties that have been clearly spelled out for us, we know for sure which side of the fence he's on. Snape is the only character she could really use here, with the desired effect, because he's still on the fence.
I posted this thought previously on the "Spell vs Hex vs..." thread:
The black hats are "black" because their ends justify their means (so they can do whatever they want to reach their goals). The white hats are "white" because they realize that the "greater good" isn't just an ending product but is made up of all the "little goods" along the way, therefore it is the means that justifies the ends, sorta speak. Someone who is grey, neither one nor the other, can deviate from the "white" path and use a mean that is not wholly justifiably as long as he redeems himself somehow.
I still think this applies to what I've said above. To me, saving Draco and Snape and sacrificing himself would've been one of the "little goods" along the way, thus Dumbledore could ask Snape to do whatever was necessary to save himself and Draco and still be the "epitome of goodness" (I never said I didn't believe he was, I just said I really hated the title).
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 2, 2006 8:46 am (#626 of 1629)
Maybe this does belong on the Snape thread, but I don't know if Snape is "already" redeemed even if he has been loyal to the cause. There are two things going on here, first the harm that Snape did generally to the wizarding world by joining up with Voldemort, and second the personal harm he did to the individual persons he wronged. The first he might be redeemed for by working for the Order and remaining loyal to Dumbledore, but the second is really for only those persons he harmed to decide. Lily and James aren't exactly going to pop up and say "Good show, mate! Everything's cool!" Harry at least deserves an explanation and apology for being left orphaned (and nearly murdered himself... multiple times).
Book seven will reveal a similar pattern for Snape's actions. We will discover that Snape has been an unsung hero since he joined the fight against Voldemort. He has devoted his entire life to that cause.
I agree that this is the way a lot of us expect the story to go. Even though I dislike Snape, I was completely convinced he was on the Good Guys' side up to the Tower scene. Even afterwards I get the feeling that there was some sort of fix going on. But I also couldn't avoid the conclusion that Snape AKed Dumbledore. And the Half-Blood Prince book and the Flight of the Prince were disturbing. I really haven't seen any scenarios with either “Snape Good” or ”Snape Bad” that provide a satisfactory explanation for everything that was happening, though “Snape Evil” works better.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nathan Zimmermann - Nov 2, 2006 9:39 am (#627 of 1629)
The reason I used the terms redemptive and redemption to describe Severus is because, J.K. Rowling has used those terms in the past. For a more detailed response see my post in this thread Nathan Zimmermann, "+ Severus Snape" #571, 2 Nov 2006 9:22 am.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 2, 2006 9:51 am (#628 of 1629)
Nathan,
The interview you mentioned was referring back to a much earlier interview with JKR in which the interviewer used the term "redemptive" and JKR sort of went along with it. If you actually listen to that earlier interview on audio, JKR seems to be more agreeing with other aspects of the question, although not denying a redemptive quality to Snape, which she also does not deny in the questions/answers you had in the linked post.
However, in the interview you quoted, JKR seems more focused on Draco as possible redemptive material.
In any case, I'm not trying to say there's not a redemptive pattern to Snape, or that JKR hasn't sort of given a nod in that direction, but more that if he has always been loyal, the redemptive aspect has already taken place, or has been in the process all along.
By the way, it's more a philosophical question, but to respond to Mrs Brisbee, I don't think a person's redemption necessarily requires the forgiveness of the one's injured. There are some who will absolutely never forgive, regardless of circumstances, but I don't think that dooms the person seeking redemption. This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 9:53 am (#629 of 1629)
She used redemptive in the Melissa/Emerson interview right after HBP came out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 2, 2006 9:54 am (#630 of 1629)
She used redemptive in the Melissa/Emerson interview right after HBP came out.
Regarding Snape, someone else, or just in general?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 9:57 am (#631 of 1629)
haymoni-
Hence his anger when Harry calls Snape a coward. (for killing DD)
I don't want to beat a dead horse, here, but...
1) Several posters have agreed they think Snape knew Harry was on the Tower.
2) If this is true, then Snape would know Harry saw him 'AK' DD.
3) Fresh from this witnessed 'kill', Harry pursues Snape.
4) Harry calls Snape a coward. Very litle reaction, a sneering comment at most. Snape knows he's not a coward so he's not fussed, and he points out to Harry that James, his dad, was a coward.
Snape's interior monologue:(I'm not a coward, you little twit, I'm busy right now, but if you'd like to know who was a coward, it was your dad)
5) Harry tries using some of the Prince's spells on Snape. Snape gets peeved and lashes out at Harry. Starts ranting about James.
6) Harry says kill me like you killed him.
7) Snape loses it entirely.
8)Huh? He knew he had just 'killed' DD when the first coward was thrown out, and Harry saw it, but no reaction.
9) Now, a second coward is tossed out and Snape is seen as demented, inhuman, as trapped as Fang in a burning building.
10) If Snape knows he is not a coward, which he seemed to just moments before, why is he so fussed now? I think, because he does feel like a coward for something other than the supposed murder of DD.
11) Add to this that the only time Jo describes Snape in this over the top fashion, it relates to James getting himself and Lily killed, the 'guilty' secret keeper escaping, and Snape's Worst Memory, Snape calls Lily Mudblood.
12) What in the above relates to Snape feeling like a coward ('cause if he doesn't feel like a coward, he wouldn't be so upset!)?
This reaction, I think, is a much deeper, older wound than the Tower, and relates back to Snape's Life Debt, Snape's feelings for Lily, the Prophesy, and Snape's attempts and failures at trying to save James and Lily. He should have done more to save James and Lily, but he was afraid. That's why the second coward stings so badly.
If it was just about DD, the first coward would have elicited a bigger reaction, IMHO.
EDIT- Wynnleaf - I agree that redemption does not require forgiveness. There are some who would never forgive no matter what a person does to redeem themselves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 10:03 am (#632 of 1629)
wynnleaf - yes it was about Snape. Actually, I believe Emerson used the word to describe Snape and Jo reacted to it. I started a thread on that interview when it first came out and I believe there are links to the actual interview in there.
I agree that the "coward" is for his entire charade. You can't be a coward when you realize that you have made a mistake and you try to correct it. You can't be a coward and lie to Voldy. You can't be a coward and lie to all the Death Eaters. You can't be a coward and agree to kill your boss.
I truly think it was that Potter Brat talking about things that he knows nothing about that set Snape over the edge.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 10:12 am (#633 of 1629)
I truly think it was that Potter Brat talking about things that he knows nothing about that set Snape over the edge.
Perhaps, but it strikes me as very peculiar that the first coward elicited almost no reaction, whereas the second puts him in an inhuman, tormented state.
Snape has been dealing with his situation for years. Under suspicion by both sides, but he never loses his cool when either side question him. Now he 'kills' DD, Harry calls him a coward, and he's still not fussed. Then Harry calls him a coward a second time, and now, after all these years, he can't take it any more, he has to lash out. It doesn't add up for me. I don't think he cares what Harry thinks, at all. He is trusted by the two most powerful wizards in the world, who cares what Potter thinks? But he does care what he thinks about himself.
Something changed from coward #1 to coward #2,and I think it was the one thing that haunts Snape, he should have done more to save James/Lily. He was thinking James, while Harry was thinking DD.
Could be wrong...
EDIT-
When my kids complain that someone (usually their sibling) called them a name and it hurt their feelings, I ask what they were called. Whatever it is I ask them if they are that thing (let's pick "coward").
They say "No!!!!!" But the hurt is still there. Then I call them a truck. I get a confused look, but no hurt feelings.
'What?' they say.
You are a truck I say. More confusion. "Does that bother you?"
No, confused smile creeps in. "I'm not a truck."
Well, are you a coward?
Big smile, "No."
Snape's too old to need the truck comment. If he knew he was not a coward Harry's comment would not have gotten to him. So we have to ask why Snape believes he is a coward.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 10:36 am (#634 of 1629)
I've always thought Harry meant James when he said that.
It could be that as the chase went on, it was clear to Snape that he was truly going to have to give up his cushy life there at Hogwarts and be on the run and thought a Death Eater and a Dumbledore-murderer.
Harry was not letting up. Perhaps it was just all too much for Snape when he realized that once he went off the grounds, his life was over.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 10:37 am (#635 of 1629)
Haymoni- We cross posted, but my edit above relates.
I've always thought Harry meant James when he said that.
Too funny that we are on opposite sides on both!
Harry is wandless, and helpless just like DD was, so I thought he was relating to DD, not James.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 2, 2006 10:43 am (#636 of 1629)
I agree T. I had wondered about it taking two times of Harry calling him coward before he gets demented. Harry's use of his own spells against him seem to set him off, such as it reminded him of James doing the same. Note: Snape’s face was suffused with hatred as it had been before he had cursed Dumbledore. That parallel seems to indicate hatred of what James did rather than what he, himself had done. Although,it could be that Snape had hatred for himself for allowing himself to appear so weak in front of others.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Nov 2, 2006 10:49 am (#637 of 1629)
I don't think Snape thinks he's a coward. Perhaps other people thought he was a coward and that whole name-calling, self-fulfilling prophesy plays into that.
If it turns out that Snape has all along been a double agent for the good guys, then I don't think there is a braver character in the books.
Just the comment in the hospital scene in GOF is enough to convince me of that. "You know what I must ask you to do..." Snape had to go to Voldy and lie his butt off.
If Voldy had any sense, he would have AK'd Snape in front of the rest of the DEs to teach them a lesson. But Voldy needed numbers and Snape is very talented and was certainly in a very useful position. Why not keep him around? I can always AK him later and blame it on Lucius.
There is something different about the second time Harry calls him a coward - he has tried to use dark spells on Snape, it is clear that Harry is trying to kill him or at least hurt him badly enough that he ends up dying. Harry is attacking him, but Snape really does nothing back to Harry. Even when he finally does go crazy and hurts Harry, Snape still is trying to teach him.
It's strange.
Alas, another reason to go back and re-read that chapter!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 10:55 am (#638 of 1629)
Haymoni- I agree Snape is very brave! But then why does the coward comment bother him? Harry is trying to use his spells, sure, but he gets a little angry and deflects them. It isn't until..
“Kill me like you killed him, you coward”
that he's not just angry, he's demented, tormented, out of control...
(and all his words go to capitals... )
The only other time Snape goes 'caps' is when James, Lily, and the bad secret keeper (thought at the time to be Black), are involved.
While Snape has been very brave, there is something that makes him sensitive to the coward comment, and usually we are only sensitive if we believe the criticism (even if we can't quite admit it to ourselves) or we care what the other person thinks about us. I don't think Snape cares what Harry thinks.
He does give him a magical 'backhand' after the second coward, I think.
It was the reread that got me...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 2, 2006 11:10 am (#639 of 1629)
He was thinking James, while Harry was thinking DD. I agree with this.
Also, it might be the culmination of *all* these reasons. James humiliated Snape with his own spells. Harry attempted to use his own spells. Snape regrets his cowardly response the night when LV went after the Potters. Snape is trying to fix his part in James' and Lily's death. No one acknowledges the danger he's been in for for 17 years spying for Dd. He's fed up with Harry. He's on the run for murdering his boss and friend (maybe). All of these would push him over the edge into a demented, inhuman reaction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 2, 2006 11:30 am (#640 of 1629)
I think the first "coward" comment was easy to dismiss. Harry said something like, "fight back, you coward!" That's sort of juvenile really. Anyway, it's not a personal affront to Snape and doesn't touch on anything other than the immediate present -- Snape is not fighting back, just deflecting Harry's spells.
But Harry's second comment, "kill me like you killed him, coward!" (or something to that effect), directly brings up Snape killing someone -- DD or James depending on how you read it and depending on how Snape took it. Either way, that remarks hits directly at something Snape must feel really bad about. Either Harry means or Snape thinks the comment is about DD, and he feels very badly about having to do that AK, OR Snape thinks Harry means James, and he feels really badly about that.
Regardless, I do think there's something in Snape's past that makes the "coward" label hurt very much when applied to a death for which he does feel some responsibility -- either DD or James, or even both.
I think Snape knows that he's not a coward. But I also think he knows that he's done things that make him appear to be a coward, so he's very, very sensitive about it. And there may be some aspect of the Potter's deaths where he feels like he should have done more to prevent that, but didn't.
I think Snape really is scared of LV -- and he should be. So if that played any part of what he did or didn't do regarding helping save James and Lily, then I imagine that would affect his feelings about being called "coward."
journeymom,
Exactly!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 2, 2006 12:49 pm (#641 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 2, 2006 12:50 pm
Leave off reading for a day and get plowed under by new posts to read and analyze. Why is this so enjoyable? Maybe we are all debators at heart!
Can't let go of the lake. I thought T Vranas comments back on post #607 about LV devising things to keep the wizard and horcrux trapped were spot on, but haven't many people posted a belief that the horcrux locket is at Grimmauld Place? Maybe RAB had help as well.
I also agree with Nathan's #614 post. I find it very hard to believe that JK would give us a definite answer to a plot line from book seven. She would not tell us now if Snape is good or bad. She will want us to wonder and wait and debate! But she does say DD is dead. We are still trying to see loopholes, but a statement is a statement isn't it? The mystery remains, though, if it was a plan, who is good or bad, etc.
And JK is so good that even with reading and rereading the fleeing Snape scene we can't decide who Snape is thinking about when he gets angry about Harry bringing up Snape's murdering someone (James or DD). Does Harry ever say to anyone that Snape killed his parents or just that Snape is responsible for their deaths?
T, Love the #633 post. I'll have to try that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 2, 2006 3:53 pm (#642 of 1629)
wynnleaf --Haymoni, I think the meaning here is that idea that in this particular series of books, JKR would only write Snape actually killing DD if Snape was evil.... I think that's what Rushdie meant, when he said that if DD is dead, Snape must be evil -- because I think Rushdie was coming from the perspective that in JKR's books, she wouldn't have "good" Snape kill his good leader.... If Snape has been loyal throughout, then he has already done far and away enough to "redeem" himself. If he's been loyal all along, the question isn't "will Snape be redeemed?" but "will Harry understand that Snape is redeemed?"—
This all assumes that Snape is either good or evil, not nuetral. I don't think we can say that Snape, according to what we've witnessed in these books, is all good or all evil (and "all" is what, to me, this line of thinking is implying). He doesn't just have to "redeem" himself to Harry, but to us, because we are Harry's shadow in JKR's world. He doesn't just need to "redeem" himself for being a git or a teacher, either. He's done some very bad things along with doing some very good ones. He risks his life to save Harry in PoA from Sirius and Lupin (that was good) but he also alludes to handing a surrendering Black straight over to the Dementors instead of taking him to Dumbledore (that was pretty evil). I know we can argue that he wouldn't have actually done it, but we don't know either way. That ambiguity and that dual nature was purposeful, on JKR's part, in my opinion so that we know that Snape is neither all good nor all evil, he's neither one side nor the other. Therefore, arguments that "if Dd's dead, then Snape's evil" or "if Snape's good, he didn't actually kill DD" don't really hold water, in my opinion. Even Rushdie seems to be sticking to the "all black or white" thinking in his question, which I think is intrinsically flawed thinking, especially in a genre that combines heroic epic and bildungsroman (I would argue that this series is far and away more the latter than the former).
P.S. Wynnleaf, I hope it didn't seem like I was picking at you in particular. It's just that you summed up many others' thoughts so well in your one post, that's why I quoted you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 4:12 pm (#643 of 1629)
SE- combines heroic epic and bildungsroman (I would argue that this series is far and away more the latter than the former).
I would have to argue back that really it is a fair mix. We have the epitome of goodness, true evil and an epic battle to come, mixed nicely with Harry's growth from boy to qualified wizard.
I agree Snape is neither good or evil, but for me that means he could not have killed DD. It would be an act of evil to kill the epitome of goodness, and, the epitome of goodness would not ask even a gray wizard to tear his soul. Its how you get the "epitome" part, by being really picky about being really good. Hence McGonogall's somewhat frustrated admiration when she comments that DD is too noble to use Dark Magic.
Otherwise DD would be the near pinnacle of goodness...
So what really happened....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 2, 2006 4:49 pm (#644 of 1629)
T Vrana --I would have to argue back that really it is a fair mix. We have the epitome of goodness, true evil and an epic battle to come, mixed nicely with Harry's growth from boy to qualified wizard.--
Bildungsroman also implies growth in terms of the hero taking his place within an established social system, but if the social system is at war, it can include establishing a new order within the social system (the good vs evil battle to end all battles), and in terms of the hero eventually internalizing the values and ethics of the social order, or the person who most exemplifies order to the hero (i.e. the mentor - Dumbledore) which goes a long way to establishing the hero as "good" or "evil" and also establishes the alignment of other characters as such as they are compared and contrasted with the hero. I say the genre is mostly bildungsroman because it is something that is a huge part of many other genres (such as heroic epic, high fantasy, military story lines, various other forms of drama, etc). Aspects of heroic epic isn't seen in a lot of other genres but bildungsroman is. See what I mean?
--I agree Snape is neither good or evil, but for me that means he could not have killed DD. It would be an act of evil to kill the epitome of goodness, and, the epitome of goodness would not ask even a gray wizard to tear his soul. Its how you get the "epitome" part, by being really picky about being really good. Hence McGonogall's somewhat frustrated admiration when she comments that DD is too noble to use Dark Magic.—
A grey wizard could most definitely do something very evil (like killing the good mentor) but could also still do something good to redeem himself afterward, that's why he's grey and not black or white. He'd have to combine an act of good with an act of retribution (he needs to suffer a consequence for his evil actions) to be truly redeemed in terms of the story.
I agree that the "epitome of goodness" (I really hate that title) wouldn't necessarily ask a grey wizard to kill him, or any wizard for that matter, simply as part of an established plan (i.e. "plan C, I need you to go to the tower and AK me"), but I could see him telling the grey wizard that it's okay to do what he needs to do to protect himself and someone else he cares for (sort of a "whatever you feel is right at the moment, I'll be okay with" or "if plans A and B fail, I'm alright with you doing what needs to be done"). I could also see the "epitome of goodness" saying, "if it comes to me or the innocent and you, you do what you have to to protect the innocent and yourself, even if that means killing me" (and this is what I think happened).
What makes the "good side” good, is the fact that it follows the rules (I'm referring to ethical rules here, i.e. they don't interfere with free will, they don't try to force someone into something with manipulation, they wouldn't deny someone the right to self-preservation, etc.), they embrace the concepts of self-sacrifice and love, they embrace and protect virtue and innocence, and they don't try to get around the natural order of things (i.e. they'd never make a Horcrux to escape death).
Dumbledore telling Snape to kill him only if he needs to protect young Draco and himself isn't telling him "tear your soul because that's what the plan calls for", it's telling him "I'm willing to sacrifice myself if I need to to protect what is good and innocent and to allow it to stay that way a little while longer" or "tear your soul if you need to to protect yourself and the innocent, I'm okay with dying", someone who is good may or may not agree to do it, but someone who is grey could.
We have to keep in mind that the "epitome of goodness" wouldn't deny someone the right to protect their own life or the life or a loved one; even if it's not the choice the "epitome", himself, would choose, he'd still respect the choice of another, it's all part of what makes him good.
I hope that slight rant made sense, I know I didn't phrase things very well.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 2, 2006 5:56 pm (#645 of 1629)
To clarify, I never said, "Snape is evil, can he be redeemed?"
I said, "As strong as the theme of redemption is, if Snape is evil the question then remains, can HE be redeemed?"
If he is evil is not the same thing as "He is evil.".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 6:44 pm (#646 of 1629)
SE- The epic nature of this series I feel is just as important as Harry's otherwise 'normal' growth from adolescent to adult. The novels I associate with bildungroman usually depicts this growth in settings that are more, ummm, real, less larger than life, purely good vs purely evil, etc. I think both genres play their part and are important to Jo's decisions.
I can agree that Snape can kill DD if he is grey (which I think he is), but he will have to pay with his life, ultimately.
I don't think Jo would put The Epitome of Goodness (sorry, but I like it!) in the position to ask to be killed. Run, hide, save yourself, but not murder. Just MHO....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 2, 2006 7:45 pm (#647 of 1629)
My whole point with the bildungsroman is that it is part of many genres, including heroic epic, high fantasy, etc, whereas the heroic epic isn't seen in that many other genres. Flour goes into chocolate cakes or on chicken, but chicken doesn't usually go in a chocolate cake. Yeah, bad example, but hopefully it gets across what I mean.
--I don't think Jo would put The Epitome of Goodness in the position to ask to be killed. Run, hide, save yourself, but not murder.—
So, I guess the way you look at it depends on what you think "please, Severus" refers to. If you think it is "please, Severus, kill me", I can see what you mean, but if you think it is "please, Severus, do what you need to to save yourself and the boy", I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for the "epitome of goodness". The "good" would never deny someone the right to defend themselves or their loved ones. Even Harry doesn't seem to hold it against Draco that he felt he needed to try to kill Dd out of fear of what Voldemort might do to his family.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 2, 2006 7:55 pm (#648 of 1629)
Part, yes. I think equally important.
I agree good would not deny someone the right to defend themselves, loved ones etc. That's why I said it was a choice Jo would not make. It could fit, just not in the context Jo has created.
It goes back to the argement, would Jo put Harry in the position of killing someone other than LV (and it remains to be seen if he'll do that). I don't think she would. Nor would she put the Epitome in the position to request Snape murder him. We could, for example, accept that Harry in his rage and hurt, tried an unforgivable in the MoM, on Bella, but Jo showed us that he doesn't have to heart (or really lack of) to do it. She gave Harry an out. There was an out on the tower, I think, we just don't know what it was yet.
Tired, hope that makes sense...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 3, 2006 1:30 am (#649 of 1629)
Just two aside comments;
I don't think Jo would put The Epitome of Goodness (sorry, but I like it!)
I like it too, T.
As a matter of fact, much of my viewpoint on every aspect of these books comes from that premise being true. I accepted it from the first time I read PS - exactly one year ago, by the way - and it has been a big factor in how I have seen the events, characters and messages (philosophical, ethical, etc.) of the whole series. This does not mean I think DD is perfect, as he is still a human being and there is no such a thing as a perfect human being. Still, when PS first came out (in the days when I wouldn't have anything to do with those Harry Potter children's books - hitting myself over the head repeatedly with a heavy lamp), Jo was interviewed by Evan Solomon of CBC tv and said then that the character of Albus Dumbledore represented the epitome of goodness. That is how she conceived him and how she chose to draw him.
Call me naive, but I believe her. I believe McGonagall and Binns when they said that DD was more than capable of doing Dark Magic, but wouldn't. Althogh I was/am horrified at how Snape treated Harry, Neville and other children as young as 11 - I call it no less than being sadistic; not just sarcastic, ironic, nasty, or what have you -, I have been willing to see some possible good in him (ie - that he really was working for the good guys although it put him in great danger) because I believe Hermoine, Lupin and Dumbledore himself when they say, "Dumbledore trusts Snape and I trust Dumbledore so I trust Snape" and, of course, "I trust Severus Snape completely."
All of the examples I gave above which I believe, are totally predicated on my conviction of Dumbledore being the "epitome of goodness." I may be proven wrong on this in Book Seven, of course. I may find that Jo lied to Evan Solomon (and others) when she made this definitive statement. But Book Seven is not out yet and, to date, I am still willing to believe.
So, I guess the way you look at it depends on what you think please, Severus" refers to." (S.E. Jones)
Exactly. It's really amazing, when you think of it, how much discussion, debate and thought those two little words have generated - on Lexicon Forum alone. What a tribute to Rowling!
Anyway, excuse the interruption.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 3, 2006 3:42 am (#650 of 1629)
Maybe it's the late hour, but I really don't see how any of what I suggested would take away from Dumbledore being the "epitome of goodness". I said he wouldn't deny someone else the right to defend themselves (I'm not talking about himself, but someone else) and he would be willing to sacrifice himself for another (Draco and Snape). If it had come down to the tower and Dumbledore had seen that it was either him or Draco and Snape and chose to defend himself, knockout the lot of them, and take off with Harry via Fawkes, which would mean that Draco, who by this point is still a possible innocent, would be killed by Voldemort and Snape would drop over dead because of the Vow, would he still be the "epitome of goodness"? I don't think so. That was my whole point about what makes the good side "good". Arguments about whether JKR would make Harry (or nearly any other Order member) do what she made Snape do are not viable arguments, in my opinion, because they are two very different characters with two very different outward loyalties. Harry (or nearly any other member of the Order) has a set of loyalties that have been clearly spelled out for us, we know for sure which side of the fence he's on. Snape is the only character she could really use here, with the desired effect, because he's still on the fence.
I posted this thought previously on the "Spell vs Hex vs..." thread:
The black hats are "black" because their ends justify their means (so they can do whatever they want to reach their goals). The white hats are "white" because they realize that the "greater good" isn't just an ending product but is made up of all the "little goods" along the way, therefore it is the means that justifies the ends, sorta speak. Someone who is grey, neither one nor the other, can deviate from the "white" path and use a mean that is not wholly justifiably as long as he redeems himself somehow.
I still think this applies to what I've said above. To me, saving Draco and Snape and sacrificing himself would've been one of the "little goods" along the way, thus Dumbledore could ask Snape to do whatever was necessary to save himself and Draco and still be the "epitome of goodness" (I never said I didn't believe he was, I just said I really hated the title).
Last edited by Lady Arabella on Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 651 to 675
Lady Arabella Wed May 18, 2011 8:53 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 3, 2006 3:48 am (#651 of 1629)
Sarah, I'm afraid you misunderstood if you think my post above was in any way saying anything disparaging about your comment that you did not like the title. I really was just saying that I, like T. Vrana, did like it - and giving my reasons for feeling that way. Obviously, some people will like it and some won't.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 6:03 am (#652 of 1629)
SE- I wasn't comparing Harry to Snape. It was late and I was tired. I was comparing what Jo will allow her characters to do and what situations she will put them. So, I was saying, she would not put Harry in a situation where he ultimately has to kill someone, except maybe LV. In a similar fashion, I don't think she put DD is a situation where the only solution was for him to ask Snape to murder him. I think we are going to find that something else happened that gave Snape and DD an out of that predicament.
Could be wrong...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 3, 2006 10:38 am (#653 of 1629)
Snape is the only character she could really use here, with the desired effect, because he's still on the fence.
Is Draco worth more than Snape? Is Dumbledore a principled man? We know he's willing to mislead and withhold information. But it seems clear that with the big issues, like life and death, Dumbledore holds true to strong principles. Without getting too much into religion, I say even Dumbledore is in no position to judge whether Draco's or Harry's soul is worth more than Snape's soul. I disagree that Dumbledore telling Snape explicitly to AK him is different from Dumbledore telling Snape to do whatever is necessary. Dumbledore is the consummate chess player and can see several steps ahead to find that one possible consequence of Snape doing whatever is necessary would require Snape to murder Dumbledore. Dumbledore was in a vice-like predicament. But being the wise sage that he was, he found a way out for Snape AND Draco. His being 150 years old really came in handy.
I think we are going to find that something else happened that gave Snape and DD an out of that predicament.
Absolutely.
=======================================================
Frodo: It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
Gandalf: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.
Substitute Harry for Frodo, Dumbledore for Gandalf, James for Bilbo and Snape for Gollum.
=======================================================
And because I think I made a brilliant response, I have no doubt I've misunderstood the argument.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 12:34 pm (#654 of 1629)
Journeymom- I don't think you've misunderstood, and I agree with your assessment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 1:26 pm (#655 of 1629)
Too late to edit above.
This line of thought has me wondering. DD was pretty sure Draco would not AK him. But would he really have let him? Or would he have summoned Fawkes? Or could he have done something else to keep him from tearing his soul? If he had a plan, did it include surviving an AK from Draco or Snape?
DD was clutching his chest on the tower. Weasley shield?
Had thought that maybe Slughorn was involved in the fake death originally. Knowing DD's willingness to try things (like Harry's accio):
DD adjusts his new Weasley cloak and waits for Draco. The scene plays out and Snape arrives. DD gets blasted off the tower and falls, but not at great speed, to the ground (similar to Harry's arrested fall from his broomstick during Quidditch). Slughorn runs out from the shadows.
Slughorn: "Did you think that would happen, Albus?"
DD stands and brushes himself off, "I knew something would happen...."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 3, 2006 2:22 pm (#656 of 1629)
Journeymom, I thought your response was brilliant as well. Course I can stand LOTR, but grammar and punctuation was spot on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
phuze - Nov 4, 2006 8:35 am (#657 of 1629)
Something T Vrana said in a previous post sparked an idea for me:
...the epitome of goodness would not ask even a gray wizard to tear his soul
What if that was the point of the public drama on top of the tower? I can't decide if Snape actually killed Dumbledore or if he was already dying from the cave potion, but it would certainly put Snape in a position to learn more about Voldemort's horcruxes if he has apparently torn his soul killing a very important person. If Snape is Voldemort's favorite and has accomplished so critical a task it just might be enough to convince Voldemort to give him information on how one makes a horcrux, information that could be very helpful to Harry in the end. Voldemort must feel that he has defeated death once and for all and might have moved on towards offering immortality as a reward to some of his followers for their eternal loyalty.
Phuze
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 4, 2006 11:18 am (#658 of 1629)
Would LV really reward anyone by giving away the secret of immortality? That would go completely against LV's plans for world domination. Not to mention that I can't see LV sharing. Hope you don't think I'm picking on you, Phuze.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 5, 2006 5:01 pm (#659 of 1629)
Yes,I agree Voldemort would probably consider it a threat if anyone besides himself achieved immortality and I don't think he would offer it as a reward for services rendered.
What about this one? Dumbledore is dead,but which one? Albus or Aberforth? Someone suggested that they might have switched.I don't know too much about this theory,but I guess it could be something to consider.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
phuze - Nov 5, 2006 6:11 pm (#660 of 1629)
Annie Infante,
I don't feel picked on. I do feel that it would be an exceptional thing (from LV's point of view) to kill the one wizard LV ever feared. And if it was one of his favorites that accomplished it? That is a very unique situation and it might lead to a unique reward or at least unique access to LV. It has to matter in some way to LV that Snape killed Dumbledore. If he doesn't reward that sort of accomplishment by one of his followers he can't very well expect to keep them following him. The equivalent of a metal hand would be a pretty lousy reward for an important killing like Snape has (as far as everyone knows) pulled off.
I just haven't seen much consideration of the aftermath of Dumbledore's death that took into account the LV side of things. It seems like that might be a fruitful area of exploration regardless of whether Snape is good or bad/killed Dumbledore or not.
Phuze
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 8:03 am (#661 of 1629)
I agree that LV has to reward Snape. I guess we will have to wait and see what form the reward takes.
I keep kind of hoping for an "out" for DD. But alas, I can't see anyone trading places with him. Harry would have known somehow if it hadn't been DD on the tower. I may have to eat my words, but I think DD has indeed died.
But, there's yet another intriguing thought from T Vrana. DD could most likely have survived an AK from Draco given his age and apparent reluctance to AK DD. But an AK from Snape is an whole other story isn't it? I like the imagined dialogue between DD and Slughorn! It actually sounds so plausible.
T Vrana, save me from going back over all the old posts...where do you stand on the DD is dead or alive question? Just when I think I have made up my mind 100% (see above) I read another "he might be alive and this is how" theory and I find myself wondering. It's very maddening really.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 8:23 am (#662 of 1629)
Hi, Annie- What if Snape didn't really want DD dead? His AK would be just as harmless.
I was completely in the “DD is alive” camp before Radio City, and am now just barely on the fence, mostly leaning toward he's dead. But I really can't resolve all the inconsistenciesin HBP, the deep down feeling that he's not dead, and Jo's odd answer to the 9 year old, then the almost immediate need to clarify with Rushdie. I wonder if she may have felt she gave something away in her response to the 9 year old.
The odd thing is that I thought he would die, thought he had to die really, but then despite potion, AK and huge fall, something isn't adding up. Sirius' death, on the other hand, was perfectly fine with me and I never questioned it. So why, with all that happened to DD, is there any question?
It is maddening!
BTW- Reading OOTP to my son, Harry loses his glasses when he falls down in the MoM during possession by LV. But DD keeps his with a 90 foot fall from a tower...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 8:33 am (#663 of 1629)
For some reason I found it easy to accept that DD had died. Have you ever read the book by John Granger? He actually predicted that DD would have to die. On first read through I have to admit I didn't see all the odd occurrences. When I found time to read the Forum again I gravitated towards this one for some reason, though. Now of course I have thought about the tower and read through portions of the book way too often! More than anything in the book I too find Jo's answers to the 9 year old and Rushdie suspect. Of course I had never read either before reading them here.
I do agree that Snape couldn't AK DD without truly wanting to. Somehow I have always seen that in his face just before he does it. But,just why would Jo write DD's death from AK so differently from others' deaths? And so around and around it goes! Perhaps I should have picked a different thread to consider!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:08 am (#664 of 1629)
For me the AK is only a small part of a really big picture that adds up to questions.
It starts with what seemed to me to be a lie by Snape to Bella and Narcissa. Like all good liars, he mixes truth with lies to make it all credible. The lie: that DD was shaken by his battle with LV. We saw no sign of this at all. DD told Fudge he would take on all his Aurors and win again, in no uncertain terms. He was sad and tired with Harry back in his office, but that was emotional, I think, not physical. Then DD marched into the Forbidden Forest alone and marched right back out with Umbridge. Harry notes that DD uses his supposedly 'dead' wand hand so fast he can barely see it. Later, at the cave, DD moves like a much younger wizard.
Why would Jo choose to put this in?
Then the odd AK, the belief by many that Snape would not kill DD, the crooked glasses after such a fall, no view of DD's body at the funeral, Jo telegraphing so early in the book what would happen at the end..
Either something is amiss, or Jo wanted us to think so.
Also, when asked about DD dying, right from the beginning her answer wasn't that DD was dead, but that in this genre the old wizard usually dies. Did she ever give such ambiguous answers to Sirius' death?
And if she bothered to tell us people who are properly, dead do not return, who won't be properly dead in book 7? We haven't had anyone not properly dead yet, and she must have had it in mind when she chose that answer.
I wonder if those who find the series after book 7 is published will ever know how lucky they are, and how much we suffered...
Unfamiliar with the book by Granger.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 6, 2006 9:12 am (#665 of 1629)
I love John Granger. I belong to his private forum, and he's a great guy. But he doesn't know any more than anyone else. I agreed with him from the start about DD, though.
As for Albus being alive and Aberforth being dead, what evidence do we have for that? (They cast an Aberforth for HBP. If they were so interchangeable, wouldn't Jo have told them not to do that?) I agree totally that Harry would have sensed it if that was not Albus on the tower. If not on the tower, certainly before that when they were together. I don't see where a switch could have been made in midstream, so to speak. Harry has seen Aberforth, after all.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 9:15 am (#666 of 1629)
I was completely in the DD is alive camp before Radio City, and am now just barely on the fence, mostly leaning toward he's dead. But I really can't resolve all the inconsistencies in HBP, the deep down feeling that he's not dead, and Jo's odd answer to the 9 year old, then the almost immediate need to clarify with Rushdie. I wonder if she may have felt she gave something away in her response to the 9 year old.
The odd thing is that I thought he would die, thought he had to die really, but then despite potion, AK and huge fall, something isn't adding up. Sirius' death, on the other hand, was perfectly fine with me and I never questioned it. So why, with all that happened to DD, is there any question?
Just for the record, this is also exactly where I stand.
To go a bit further, I think that if DD is dead, he did not die from Snape's AK. I also think it's very possible that DD was not dead at the end of HBP, but is dead now (in 2006), and he "died" before the end of Harry's 7th year.
And everyone might as well "start the grieving process" because in book 7 we'll find out how DD died -- past tense, because he's now dead in 2006.
I have a feeling JKR thinks of her characters in real time -- who they "were" in the 1990's and who they "are" now. She could only invite the characters to dinner now, if they are alive "now." DD is dead because it's 2006 and he died back in the 1990's. Just a sense I have in the way JKR talks about them and sometimes in the way she answers questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:15 am (#667 of 1629)
I really hate the idea that Harry was with anyone other than DD that night.
wynnleaf- Someone said there would be a chapter telling us what happens to the characters post book 7. If this is true, and she has already written that chapter, I can see your scenario. DD, to Jo, is dead. He may not even die in the main body of book 7 if this is the case.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 9:19 am (#668 of 1629)
I really hate the idea that Harry was with anyone other than DD that night.
I agree. Besides, no matter who was on the tower, there's still all those oddities. Why use all those peculiar things on the tower if it was somebody else entirely?
(waves to T Vrana)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:24 am (#669 of 1629)
(waves back to wynnleaf)
I almost get the sense that Jo was annoyed that DD's death was the big question, and that she took some pleasure in shooting down the “DD is not dead” website.
If she has planned this all along (16 years) as one of the key surprises in Book 7, and we're not buying it after all she put DD through, I can see her being a bit perturbed ...and perhaps misleading...
She has already said some folks are not going to be happy with book 7, which folks? The ones who are convinced he's alive, or dead? And if she just told us he's dead, why are we going to be unhappy when the book finally comes out?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 10:34 am (#670 of 1629)
Ah, Snape and Narcissa and Bella. There have to be clues there. How about this, if Snape really does hate DD, for whatever reason, he wouldn't find it hard at all to out and out lie about DD's condition and make him seem worse off than he really is and in the process make LV seem even better than he really is. And then really kill him on the tower.
Something else that sticks in my memory. Where in the books does it mention how when DD makes a mistake it is usually correspondingly larger than others' mistakes because he is correspondingly more intelligent? I may have butchered the quote too much. The thought I have is this; what if DD was wrong about Snape and therefore the result of this mistaken trust would be his death?
As for the "usually" and "properly" I totally wonder about that, too. Jo is in too great a command of the language to use words carelessly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 6, 2006 11:05 am (#671 of 1629)
I had read the Aberforth/Dumbledore switch on a different site and don't know all the specifics involved and thought perhaps someone else may have heard about it. I don't like the idea of Harry being with someone besides Dumbledore in the cave either. Especially when he tells Harry "I'm not worried, I'm with you." I wouldn't want those words coming from an imposter. I only noticed one similarity with the two. When Aberforth was talking to Mundungus he was described as drawing his cloak more tightly around his neck before walking off and Dumbledore was described as doing the same thing after he and Harry had apparated and were heading towards Slughorns. The only time I can see for a possible switch of the two was when Dumbledore sent Harry after his cloak, but personally, I think Dumbledore was doing something else during this time either talking with Snape or hanging his portrait
Annie,I am with T Vrana and Wynnleaf.I am not totally convinced that Dumbledore was dead at the end of HBP. Therefore,I am interested in any theory that may prove this. Besides all the references to sleep, JKR's vagueness with the Emerson/ Melissa interview answers, Radio City, and other clues listed at the beginning of this thread, there is the Jam question and lack of proof that Dumbledore was great at transfiguration that needs to be addressed.
As for Dumbledore's huge mistake. I too, have thought that he could be referring to Snape, but a time-turner would have to be used for him to know this. I haven't totally written this one off either even though time-turners give me a huge headache.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 11:12 am (#672 of 1629)
Where in the books does it mention how when DD makes a mistake it is usually correspondingly larger than others' mistakes because he is correspondingly more intelligent? I may have butchered the quote too much. The thought I have is this; what if DD was wrong about Snape and therefore the result of this mistaken trust would be his death?
DD says it himself in OOTP when he is explaining matters to Harry. DD is talking not about being wrong about people's characters, but being wrong about what he was willing and not willing to put people through -- particularly people he cared about.
I don't think DD has so far been wrong about anyone's character. He apparently didn't realize that LV was hiding out in the back of Quirrell's head -- at least we think he didn't. He wasn't necessarily mistaken in Quirrell's personal character, but he didn't realize that LV had possessed Quirrell. LV was able to conceal his own presence from DD.
Similarly, DD was not mistaken in Mad Eye Moody's character. The problem was that Barty, Jr. was able to act the part of Moody extremely well, so that DD thought Barty was Moody. The moment Barty did something that DD knew Moody would not have done (remove Harry from his presence after Harry came back from LV), DD knew it wasn't Moody.
DD was surprised at how far Fudge was willing to go to protect his own position (having Barty Jr. kissed by dementors), but he wasn't mistaken in Fudge's overall character.
DD did not know that the Marauders had become animagi, but that doesn't mean he was wrong about their characters.
Unless we find out that Snape is possessed by another character, or is really another character polyjuiced to look like Snape, or something like that, I think DD making a mistake about Snape means that DD was totally mistaken about the character of a person he worked closely with for many years -- and that's just too big of a mistake to then continue to trust DD's assessment of anyone else's character.
I think if we (and Harry) are going to trust DD's opinion of Voldemort and what makes him "tick" we have to trust DD's opinion of other characters as well.
On a side note, I've become very interested in looking at what DD thinks about other characters. I think I might take it up on the Dumbledore thread.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 11:15 am (#673 of 1629)
Do we know that DD didn't know about Quirrelmort? At the end of SS/PS, Harry seems to think he did, and gave him a chance to go after him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 11:15 am (#674 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 6, 2006 11:17 am
I am beginning to wish I hadn't started reading the books until all 7 were out! Waiting for answers to these questions to be answered is difficult! I will try to find the qoute I mentioned above because I think it matters. DD will have made a mistake with a huge consequence that will make that comment have meant something. In other words I think Jo foreshadowed something by that comment. Must go till tomorrow.
Edit: it seems some posts crossed!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 11:21 am (#675 of 1629)
Waiting for answers to these questions to be answered is difficult! I will try to find the qoute I mentioned above because I think it matters. DD will have made a mistake with a huge consequence that will make that comment have meant something.
It doesn't have to be foreshadowing to mean something. I think it had already meant something at the end of OOTP. Harry was very upset at DD because he felt DD's mistakes with Sirius had lead ultimately to Sirius' death. DD was acknowledging his own mistakes in not telling Harry more about the prophecy, and perhaps in keeping Sirius confined to 12 Grimmauld, as partially responsible for Harry going to the MOM, and the ensuing battle in which Sirius was killed. So DD's big mistake was partially responsible for Sirius' death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 3, 2006 3:48 am (#651 of 1629)
Sarah, I'm afraid you misunderstood if you think my post above was in any way saying anything disparaging about your comment that you did not like the title. I really was just saying that I, like T. Vrana, did like it - and giving my reasons for feeling that way. Obviously, some people will like it and some won't.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 6:03 am (#652 of 1629)
SE- I wasn't comparing Harry to Snape. It was late and I was tired. I was comparing what Jo will allow her characters to do and what situations she will put them. So, I was saying, she would not put Harry in a situation where he ultimately has to kill someone, except maybe LV. In a similar fashion, I don't think she put DD is a situation where the only solution was for him to ask Snape to murder him. I think we are going to find that something else happened that gave Snape and DD an out of that predicament.
Could be wrong...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 3, 2006 10:38 am (#653 of 1629)
Snape is the only character she could really use here, with the desired effect, because he's still on the fence.
Is Draco worth more than Snape? Is Dumbledore a principled man? We know he's willing to mislead and withhold information. But it seems clear that with the big issues, like life and death, Dumbledore holds true to strong principles. Without getting too much into religion, I say even Dumbledore is in no position to judge whether Draco's or Harry's soul is worth more than Snape's soul. I disagree that Dumbledore telling Snape explicitly to AK him is different from Dumbledore telling Snape to do whatever is necessary. Dumbledore is the consummate chess player and can see several steps ahead to find that one possible consequence of Snape doing whatever is necessary would require Snape to murder Dumbledore. Dumbledore was in a vice-like predicament. But being the wise sage that he was, he found a way out for Snape AND Draco. His being 150 years old really came in handy.
I think we are going to find that something else happened that gave Snape and DD an out of that predicament.
Absolutely.
=======================================================
Frodo: It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
Gandalf: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.
Substitute Harry for Frodo, Dumbledore for Gandalf, James for Bilbo and Snape for Gollum.
=======================================================
And because I think I made a brilliant response, I have no doubt I've misunderstood the argument.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 12:34 pm (#654 of 1629)
Journeymom- I don't think you've misunderstood, and I agree with your assessment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 1:26 pm (#655 of 1629)
Too late to edit above.
This line of thought has me wondering. DD was pretty sure Draco would not AK him. But would he really have let him? Or would he have summoned Fawkes? Or could he have done something else to keep him from tearing his soul? If he had a plan, did it include surviving an AK from Draco or Snape?
DD was clutching his chest on the tower. Weasley shield?
Had thought that maybe Slughorn was involved in the fake death originally. Knowing DD's willingness to try things (like Harry's accio):
DD adjusts his new Weasley cloak and waits for Draco. The scene plays out and Snape arrives. DD gets blasted off the tower and falls, but not at great speed, to the ground (similar to Harry's arrested fall from his broomstick during Quidditch). Slughorn runs out from the shadows.
Slughorn: "Did you think that would happen, Albus?"
DD stands and brushes himself off, "I knew something would happen...."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 3, 2006 2:22 pm (#656 of 1629)
Journeymom, I thought your response was brilliant as well. Course I can stand LOTR, but grammar and punctuation was spot on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
phuze - Nov 4, 2006 8:35 am (#657 of 1629)
Something T Vrana said in a previous post sparked an idea for me:
...the epitome of goodness would not ask even a gray wizard to tear his soul
What if that was the point of the public drama on top of the tower? I can't decide if Snape actually killed Dumbledore or if he was already dying from the cave potion, but it would certainly put Snape in a position to learn more about Voldemort's horcruxes if he has apparently torn his soul killing a very important person. If Snape is Voldemort's favorite and has accomplished so critical a task it just might be enough to convince Voldemort to give him information on how one makes a horcrux, information that could be very helpful to Harry in the end. Voldemort must feel that he has defeated death once and for all and might have moved on towards offering immortality as a reward to some of his followers for their eternal loyalty.
Phuze
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 4, 2006 11:18 am (#658 of 1629)
Would LV really reward anyone by giving away the secret of immortality? That would go completely against LV's plans for world domination. Not to mention that I can't see LV sharing. Hope you don't think I'm picking on you, Phuze.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 5, 2006 5:01 pm (#659 of 1629)
Yes,I agree Voldemort would probably consider it a threat if anyone besides himself achieved immortality and I don't think he would offer it as a reward for services rendered.
What about this one? Dumbledore is dead,but which one? Albus or Aberforth? Someone suggested that they might have switched.I don't know too much about this theory,but I guess it could be something to consider.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
phuze - Nov 5, 2006 6:11 pm (#660 of 1629)
Annie Infante,
I don't feel picked on. I do feel that it would be an exceptional thing (from LV's point of view) to kill the one wizard LV ever feared. And if it was one of his favorites that accomplished it? That is a very unique situation and it might lead to a unique reward or at least unique access to LV. It has to matter in some way to LV that Snape killed Dumbledore. If he doesn't reward that sort of accomplishment by one of his followers he can't very well expect to keep them following him. The equivalent of a metal hand would be a pretty lousy reward for an important killing like Snape has (as far as everyone knows) pulled off.
I just haven't seen much consideration of the aftermath of Dumbledore's death that took into account the LV side of things. It seems like that might be a fruitful area of exploration regardless of whether Snape is good or bad/killed Dumbledore or not.
Phuze
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 8:03 am (#661 of 1629)
I agree that LV has to reward Snape. I guess we will have to wait and see what form the reward takes.
I keep kind of hoping for an "out" for DD. But alas, I can't see anyone trading places with him. Harry would have known somehow if it hadn't been DD on the tower. I may have to eat my words, but I think DD has indeed died.
But, there's yet another intriguing thought from T Vrana. DD could most likely have survived an AK from Draco given his age and apparent reluctance to AK DD. But an AK from Snape is an whole other story isn't it? I like the imagined dialogue between DD and Slughorn! It actually sounds so plausible.
T Vrana, save me from going back over all the old posts...where do you stand on the DD is dead or alive question? Just when I think I have made up my mind 100% (see above) I read another "he might be alive and this is how" theory and I find myself wondering. It's very maddening really.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 8:23 am (#662 of 1629)
Hi, Annie- What if Snape didn't really want DD dead? His AK would be just as harmless.
I was completely in the “DD is alive” camp before Radio City, and am now just barely on the fence, mostly leaning toward he's dead. But I really can't resolve all the inconsistenciesin HBP, the deep down feeling that he's not dead, and Jo's odd answer to the 9 year old, then the almost immediate need to clarify with Rushdie. I wonder if she may have felt she gave something away in her response to the 9 year old.
The odd thing is that I thought he would die, thought he had to die really, but then despite potion, AK and huge fall, something isn't adding up. Sirius' death, on the other hand, was perfectly fine with me and I never questioned it. So why, with all that happened to DD, is there any question?
It is maddening!
BTW- Reading OOTP to my son, Harry loses his glasses when he falls down in the MoM during possession by LV. But DD keeps his with a 90 foot fall from a tower...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 8:33 am (#663 of 1629)
For some reason I found it easy to accept that DD had died. Have you ever read the book by John Granger? He actually predicted that DD would have to die. On first read through I have to admit I didn't see all the odd occurrences. When I found time to read the Forum again I gravitated towards this one for some reason, though. Now of course I have thought about the tower and read through portions of the book way too often! More than anything in the book I too find Jo's answers to the 9 year old and Rushdie suspect. Of course I had never read either before reading them here.
I do agree that Snape couldn't AK DD without truly wanting to. Somehow I have always seen that in his face just before he does it. But,just why would Jo write DD's death from AK so differently from others' deaths? And so around and around it goes! Perhaps I should have picked a different thread to consider!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:08 am (#664 of 1629)
For me the AK is only a small part of a really big picture that adds up to questions.
It starts with what seemed to me to be a lie by Snape to Bella and Narcissa. Like all good liars, he mixes truth with lies to make it all credible. The lie: that DD was shaken by his battle with LV. We saw no sign of this at all. DD told Fudge he would take on all his Aurors and win again, in no uncertain terms. He was sad and tired with Harry back in his office, but that was emotional, I think, not physical. Then DD marched into the Forbidden Forest alone and marched right back out with Umbridge. Harry notes that DD uses his supposedly 'dead' wand hand so fast he can barely see it. Later, at the cave, DD moves like a much younger wizard.
Why would Jo choose to put this in?
Then the odd AK, the belief by many that Snape would not kill DD, the crooked glasses after such a fall, no view of DD's body at the funeral, Jo telegraphing so early in the book what would happen at the end..
Either something is amiss, or Jo wanted us to think so.
Also, when asked about DD dying, right from the beginning her answer wasn't that DD was dead, but that in this genre the old wizard usually dies. Did she ever give such ambiguous answers to Sirius' death?
And if she bothered to tell us people who are properly, dead do not return, who won't be properly dead in book 7? We haven't had anyone not properly dead yet, and she must have had it in mind when she chose that answer.
I wonder if those who find the series after book 7 is published will ever know how lucky they are, and how much we suffered...
Unfamiliar with the book by Granger.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 6, 2006 9:12 am (#665 of 1629)
I love John Granger. I belong to his private forum, and he's a great guy. But he doesn't know any more than anyone else. I agreed with him from the start about DD, though.
As for Albus being alive and Aberforth being dead, what evidence do we have for that? (They cast an Aberforth for HBP. If they were so interchangeable, wouldn't Jo have told them not to do that?) I agree totally that Harry would have sensed it if that was not Albus on the tower. If not on the tower, certainly before that when they were together. I don't see where a switch could have been made in midstream, so to speak. Harry has seen Aberforth, after all.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 9:15 am (#666 of 1629)
I was completely in the DD is alive camp before Radio City, and am now just barely on the fence, mostly leaning toward he's dead. But I really can't resolve all the inconsistencies in HBP, the deep down feeling that he's not dead, and Jo's odd answer to the 9 year old, then the almost immediate need to clarify with Rushdie. I wonder if she may have felt she gave something away in her response to the 9 year old.
The odd thing is that I thought he would die, thought he had to die really, but then despite potion, AK and huge fall, something isn't adding up. Sirius' death, on the other hand, was perfectly fine with me and I never questioned it. So why, with all that happened to DD, is there any question?
Just for the record, this is also exactly where I stand.
To go a bit further, I think that if DD is dead, he did not die from Snape's AK. I also think it's very possible that DD was not dead at the end of HBP, but is dead now (in 2006), and he "died" before the end of Harry's 7th year.
And everyone might as well "start the grieving process" because in book 7 we'll find out how DD died -- past tense, because he's now dead in 2006.
I have a feeling JKR thinks of her characters in real time -- who they "were" in the 1990's and who they "are" now. She could only invite the characters to dinner now, if they are alive "now." DD is dead because it's 2006 and he died back in the 1990's. Just a sense I have in the way JKR talks about them and sometimes in the way she answers questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:15 am (#667 of 1629)
I really hate the idea that Harry was with anyone other than DD that night.
wynnleaf- Someone said there would be a chapter telling us what happens to the characters post book 7. If this is true, and she has already written that chapter, I can see your scenario. DD, to Jo, is dead. He may not even die in the main body of book 7 if this is the case.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 9:19 am (#668 of 1629)
I really hate the idea that Harry was with anyone other than DD that night.
I agree. Besides, no matter who was on the tower, there's still all those oddities. Why use all those peculiar things on the tower if it was somebody else entirely?
(waves to T Vrana)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:24 am (#669 of 1629)
(waves back to wynnleaf)
I almost get the sense that Jo was annoyed that DD's death was the big question, and that she took some pleasure in shooting down the “DD is not dead” website.
If she has planned this all along (16 years) as one of the key surprises in Book 7, and we're not buying it after all she put DD through, I can see her being a bit perturbed ...and perhaps misleading...
She has already said some folks are not going to be happy with book 7, which folks? The ones who are convinced he's alive, or dead? And if she just told us he's dead, why are we going to be unhappy when the book finally comes out?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 10:34 am (#670 of 1629)
Ah, Snape and Narcissa and Bella. There have to be clues there. How about this, if Snape really does hate DD, for whatever reason, he wouldn't find it hard at all to out and out lie about DD's condition and make him seem worse off than he really is and in the process make LV seem even better than he really is. And then really kill him on the tower.
Something else that sticks in my memory. Where in the books does it mention how when DD makes a mistake it is usually correspondingly larger than others' mistakes because he is correspondingly more intelligent? I may have butchered the quote too much. The thought I have is this; what if DD was wrong about Snape and therefore the result of this mistaken trust would be his death?
As for the "usually" and "properly" I totally wonder about that, too. Jo is in too great a command of the language to use words carelessly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 6, 2006 11:05 am (#671 of 1629)
I had read the Aberforth/Dumbledore switch on a different site and don't know all the specifics involved and thought perhaps someone else may have heard about it. I don't like the idea of Harry being with someone besides Dumbledore in the cave either. Especially when he tells Harry "I'm not worried, I'm with you." I wouldn't want those words coming from an imposter. I only noticed one similarity with the two. When Aberforth was talking to Mundungus he was described as drawing his cloak more tightly around his neck before walking off and Dumbledore was described as doing the same thing after he and Harry had apparated and were heading towards Slughorns. The only time I can see for a possible switch of the two was when Dumbledore sent Harry after his cloak, but personally, I think Dumbledore was doing something else during this time either talking with Snape or hanging his portrait
Annie,I am with T Vrana and Wynnleaf.I am not totally convinced that Dumbledore was dead at the end of HBP. Therefore,I am interested in any theory that may prove this. Besides all the references to sleep, JKR's vagueness with the Emerson/ Melissa interview answers, Radio City, and other clues listed at the beginning of this thread, there is the Jam question and lack of proof that Dumbledore was great at transfiguration that needs to be addressed.
As for Dumbledore's huge mistake. I too, have thought that he could be referring to Snape, but a time-turner would have to be used for him to know this. I haven't totally written this one off either even though time-turners give me a huge headache.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 11:12 am (#672 of 1629)
Where in the books does it mention how when DD makes a mistake it is usually correspondingly larger than others' mistakes because he is correspondingly more intelligent? I may have butchered the quote too much. The thought I have is this; what if DD was wrong about Snape and therefore the result of this mistaken trust would be his death?
DD says it himself in OOTP when he is explaining matters to Harry. DD is talking not about being wrong about people's characters, but being wrong about what he was willing and not willing to put people through -- particularly people he cared about.
I don't think DD has so far been wrong about anyone's character. He apparently didn't realize that LV was hiding out in the back of Quirrell's head -- at least we think he didn't. He wasn't necessarily mistaken in Quirrell's personal character, but he didn't realize that LV had possessed Quirrell. LV was able to conceal his own presence from DD.
Similarly, DD was not mistaken in Mad Eye Moody's character. The problem was that Barty, Jr. was able to act the part of Moody extremely well, so that DD thought Barty was Moody. The moment Barty did something that DD knew Moody would not have done (remove Harry from his presence after Harry came back from LV), DD knew it wasn't Moody.
DD was surprised at how far Fudge was willing to go to protect his own position (having Barty Jr. kissed by dementors), but he wasn't mistaken in Fudge's overall character.
DD did not know that the Marauders had become animagi, but that doesn't mean he was wrong about their characters.
Unless we find out that Snape is possessed by another character, or is really another character polyjuiced to look like Snape, or something like that, I think DD making a mistake about Snape means that DD was totally mistaken about the character of a person he worked closely with for many years -- and that's just too big of a mistake to then continue to trust DD's assessment of anyone else's character.
I think if we (and Harry) are going to trust DD's opinion of Voldemort and what makes him "tick" we have to trust DD's opinion of other characters as well.
On a side note, I've become very interested in looking at what DD thinks about other characters. I think I might take it up on the Dumbledore thread.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 11:15 am (#673 of 1629)
Do we know that DD didn't know about Quirrelmort? At the end of SS/PS, Harry seems to think he did, and gave him a chance to go after him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 11:15 am (#674 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 6, 2006 11:17 am
I am beginning to wish I hadn't started reading the books until all 7 were out! Waiting for answers to these questions to be answered is difficult! I will try to find the qoute I mentioned above because I think it matters. DD will have made a mistake with a huge consequence that will make that comment have meant something. In other words I think Jo foreshadowed something by that comment. Must go till tomorrow.
Edit: it seems some posts crossed!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 11:21 am (#675 of 1629)
Waiting for answers to these questions to be answered is difficult! I will try to find the qoute I mentioned above because I think it matters. DD will have made a mistake with a huge consequence that will make that comment have meant something.
It doesn't have to be foreshadowing to mean something. I think it had already meant something at the end of OOTP. Harry was very upset at DD because he felt DD's mistakes with Sirius had lead ultimately to Sirius' death. DD was acknowledging his own mistakes in not telling Harry more about the prophecy, and perhaps in keeping Sirius confined to 12 Grimmauld, as partially responsible for Harry going to the MOM, and the ensuing battle in which Sirius was killed. So DD's big mistake was partially responsible for Sirius' death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 676 to 700
Lady Arabella Wed May 18, 2011 8:55 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 11:29 am (#676 of 1629)
DD did underestimate how deep Snape's wounds are...if DD is wrong about Snape, it will be this, I think, not that Snape was always a DE.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 11:59 am (#677 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 6, 2006 12:00 pm
The passage I was thinking of is in HBP on page 197 (hard).
During their first "lesson" DD tells Harry, "Naturally I do, but as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."
So I realize he may be in part referring to the events mentioned in OoP, I just have to wonder what else he is capable of being mistaken about. Snape perhaps? Although, I do get the idea mentioned in teh post above about how DD was mistaken about the depth of Snape's resentment.
Now I really, really have to go!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 6, 2006 6:15 pm (#678 of 1629)
Dumbledore - "Naturally I do, but as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."
Is there such a word as "huger"? Since Dumbledore made what I consider a grammatical error in describing his mistakes, I figured he was also in error about the size of his mistakes.
# *leaves to take some aspirin**
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 6:23 pm (#679 of 1629)
Yup, huger is a word, as is hugest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 6, 2006 6:56 pm (#680 of 1629)
I am glad you said that,T. I have used that word before and thought for a moment how hillbilly I might have sounded.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 6, 2006 8:19 pm (#681 of 1629)
Madam P. Do you “warsh” your clothes as well?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:32 pm (#682 of 1629)
Now isn't this interesting...
In POA Harry falls 50 feet from his broom when the dementors swarm the quidditch pitch.
I thought he was dead for sure.
But he didn't even break his glasses.
A bit later...
He(DD) ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground....
OK. Those who saw Harry fall said it was the scariest thing they had ever seen, and, they are surprised Harry didn't die. This from a fall of 50 feet, with DD slowing his fall.
DD falls 90 feet and his glasses are a bit crooked.
There are only a few possible conclusions here:
1) Jo put this in knowing what was coming in book 6. We are introduced to a spell that slows freefall, and the idea that glasses could have broken from 50 feet, but didn't, thanks, I would guess to DD's intervention. CLUE.
2) Jo got sloppy.
3) Jo decided that a picturesque and symbolic death trumps the reality she has already established.
M pomfrey- This is the Forum! Hillbillies (and everyone else) welcome! (But, I confess, 'hillbilly' has never entered my mind when reading any of your posts).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 6, 2006 9:41 pm (#683 of 1629)
T Vrana said: "I almost get the sense that Jo was annoyed that DD's death was the big question, and that she took some pleasure in shooting down the DD is not dead website. "If she has planned this all along (16 years) as one of the key surprises in Book 7, and we're not buying it after all she put DD through, I can see her being a bit perturbed ...and perhaps misleading..."
I agree with this completely, especially if she went out of her way to write it so she would NOT have the same arguments going on that we had after Sirius died. If she thought, "Okay, I'll give them a body and a funeral, and a tomb this time, and that will be that!" and we're still arguing, I think it could very well be annoying.
There are very strong similarities, both to the situation (Jo saying she didn't want to kill Sirius, but there was a reason) and to the fan's reaction. “Dumbledore-is-not-dead” is really "Sirius Part II" in many ways as I see it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Saracene - Nov 6, 2006 11:01 pm (#684 of 1629)
---During their first "lesson" DD tells Harry," Naturally I do, but as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."---
Well, personally I think that at least one of those huge mistakes was underestimating lil' Draco's ingenuity and belief that Hogwarts could not be broken into from the outside. I think that the presence of Death Eaters stuffed up DD's plans baaaad.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 12:31 am (#685 of 1629)
T Vrana --OK. Those who saw Harry fall said it was the scariest thing they had ever seen, and, they are surprised Harry didn't die. This from a fall of 50 feet, with DD slowing his fall.
DD falls 90 feet and his glasses are a bit crooked.
There are only a few possible conclusions here:
1) Jo put this in knowing what was coming in book 6. We are introduced to a spell that slows freefall, and the idea that glasses could have broken from 50 feet, but didn't, thanks, I would guess to DD's intervention. CLUE.
2) Jo got sloppy.
3) Jo decided that a picturesque and symbolic death trumps the reality she has already established.--
From my post #276:
--It could also be that Dumbledore had some magic on his glasses. We know that Harry's glasses have been enchanted so as not to break and so that rain doesn't stick to the lenses. We know that a fifty foot drop didn't break Harry's glasses (I'm thinking the "Impervius" charm Hermione used made them unbreakable, but I'm not sure), but then again Dumbledore did something to make Harry fall slower. Still, it seems that Dumbledore's glasses may have been magical themselves as he looks at Harry and Ron under the invisibility cloak through them, as if he could see the kids through the lenses, so maybe he's "Impervius"-ed them so they wouldn't absorb shock and thus not break....--
Anyway, I just wanted to share that because I'm thinking that, if Dumbledore's glasses had indeed been enchanted to see magic or things which might be invisible they would be rather valuable and thus he'd have put some spell on them to keep them safe, similar to how Hermione put a spell on Harry's classes to make them impervious to water (and possibly other things as well, I noticed they didn't break when Draco stomped on his face in HBP).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 7:14 am (#686 of 1629)
Well, personally I think that at least one of those huge mistakes was underestimating lil' Draco's ingenuity and belief that Hogwarts could not be broken into from the outside. I think that the presence of Death Eaters stuffed up DD's plans baaaad. (Saracene)
Um, DD was expecting someone to get into the castle. Why else would he have Order members stationed within Hogwarts -- even bringing back Lupin from his werewolf mission?
--It could also be that Dumbledore had some magic on his glasses. (S.E.Jones)
For the purposes of my comments below, "oddities" are not things for which one can find no explanation. "Oddities" are things which deviate from the usual way JKR has had things occur in the past in her world, OR things that deviate from what would normally happen in the real world.
If an author has something odd happen knowing that it is odd (it's not just being sloppy), then the reader should expect the writer to eventually explain the oddity, either directly where the narration or a character specifically explains it, or indirectly where truths are revealed that explain the earlier oddities.
If DD's death is exactly as it appeared in HBP -- he was really AK'd and really free-fell to the bottom of the tower -- then there will be no real opportunity for JKR to give us extra details to explain oddities like why DD's eye's were closed, why his glasses stayed on, why the AK picked him up and threw him off the tower, blood flowing from mouth, etc. No amount of ideas on our part will really work to explain these oddities because they won't be explained in the future.
If JKR has intentionally written these oddities, she should explain them. But if DD's death was straightforward, there's no opportunity or internal plot mechanism to explain them. Think about it -- if DD is completely dead and in his grave and he died on that tower, then there's no plot reason why any character or narration is ever going to re-visit how DD's glasses stayed on his head, or why his eyes were closed, or why that AK acted so differently from the rest, etc.
If she did not intentionally write these anomalies, then she was being somewhat sloppy because she deviated from the earlier parameters that she'd outlined for the way things work in her world, or the way things actually happen in the real world.
If she wrote them intentionally and will explain the oddities in the future, it almost certainly is because DD did not die a straightforward death that night, because that would be the only excuse to explain those anomalies within the plot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 7:41 am (#687 of 1629)
If DD's death is exactly as it appeared in HBP -- he was really AK'd and really free-fell to the bottom of the tower -- then we cannot expect JKR to give us extra details to explain oddities like why DD's eye's were closed, why his glasses stayed on, why the AK picked him up and threw him off the tower, blood flowing from mouth, etc. No amount of ideas on our part will really work to explain these oddities because they won't be explained in the future.
If JKR has intentionally written these oddities, she should explain them. But if DD's death was straightforward, there's no opportunity or internal plot mechanism to explain them. – wynnleaf
I agree. But, if S.E. Jones's idea of Dumbledore's glasses being enchanted does prove correct, there will be a mechanism to explain that in book 7.
If she did not intentionally write these anomalies, then she was being somewhat sloppy because she deviated from the earlier parameters that she'd outlined for the way things work in her world, or the way things actually happen in the real world.-- wynnleaf
Actually, I find almost all of those things on the list to fit easily within the parameters established earlier in the series. The one exception might be the glasses. If this was Real Life I wouldn't blink twice over them not falling off, because I have found Real Life to be a lot more complex and unpredictable than fiction. Many times a writer has to conform to what her readers will expect to happen just to create a false sense of reality, because real life could create much more wild and strange scenarios. It seems that there are a lot of people who expect that Dumbledore should have lost his glasses. I'm not one of them, so I have a hard time seeing this as sloppy writing, but I guess others do see it that way, but that's okay. There are several things from earlier in the series that Rowling has yet to explain to my satisfaction, and I don't think she ever will.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 7:48 am (#688 of 1629)
Actually, I find almost all of those things on the list to fit easily within the parameters established earlier in the series. (Mrs. Brisbee).
By parameters, I include the way JKR has described things happening in other instances in the books, even if she didn't specifically say "this is that way it must be." For instance, in other AK's -- whether we see them directly in the books or whether they are described by other characters -- the victims, if their eyes were mentioned, had their eyes open and staring. To have DD's eyes closed, without any explanation for why this situation is different, is deviating from her parameters. We can guess all sorts of excuses, but without JKR having said why his eyes were closed, and with all other descriptions of AK's mentioning eyes to describe them as wide and staring, we have a deviation from the parameters.
The same goes for an AK that throws its victim up and over a wall. No other AKs that hit a person caused that kind of thing to occur. Just because we can imagine some reason for it to occur does not get JKR off the hook from breaking parameters she has set without any explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 7:55 am (#689 of 1629)
And, Harry lost his glasses just falling down in the MoM, during LVs attempted possession. But 90 feet has no effect on DD's glasses? I agree with Wynnleaf, how is Jo going to explain this if DD is dead? No one questioned it in book 6, so if DD is dead, why bring it up in book 7? And, if it won't be explained, that's sloppy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 7:59 am (#690 of 1629)
breaking parameters –wynnleaf
Let me disagree. You are arguing that all AKs must work in a certain way. I am arguing that all spells that hit with excessive power must work in a certain way. We are both within parameters. What happens when the two established effects collide? In my opinion, Dumbledore should be dead and knocked off the wall.
As for eyes open, I remember discussing patterns a while back. There is actually variation in how different people met the AK spell-- it is not uniform. Unless AK causes eyes to open, there is actually no reason to expect eyes to be open. Instead I think Rowling has shown with each AK how the victim has reacted to meeting Death.
These are not "excuses", these are me looking at the parameters already established. We just see those parameters differently.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 8:06 am (#691 of 1629)
Let me disagree. You are arguing that all AKs must work in a certain way. I am arguing that all spells that hit with excessive power must work in a certain way. We are both within parameters. What happens when the two established effects collide? In my opinion, Dumbledore should be dead and knocked off the wall.
Hm. I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that an AK must work in a certain way. I'm saying that JKR has never before shown it acting differently when it hits its victim. Every other described AK that hit a human, dropped them where they stood. That's the parameter -- what JKR has heretofore described, versus what she had happen to DD.
Same goes for the eyes. Prior to DD, JKR did not have one single description of an AK victim with their eyes closed. She had several with eyes wide and staring, including as I recall at least one description of an "off page" AK. Then there's DD with eyes closed. This was a first for all the descriptions. Therefore it broke her already established descriptive pattern.
No she has never set specific rules for what happens to eyes or how the AK affects the body -- but she did have several descriptions which were very similar and then the description of DD which is different from the other descriptions without explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 8:15 am (#692 of 1629)
By variation, I meant the entirety of how they looked--not just the eyes.
The Riddles had looks of horror on their faces, while Cedric simply looked surprised. I don't think those reactions are interchangeable. And I think this goes toward my view that the totality of the victim's expression shows how they reacted to Death. Eyes open or eyes closed would by part of their expression or reaction. I see the reaction as Rowling's descriptive pattern, not just eye open/eye closed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 7, 2006 8:22 am (#693 of 1629)
I find the whole situation odd. That's why I maintain, for now, that Dumbledore did not die at the end of HBP. If he did, I hope she answers all the questions on why she deviated from her normal AK.I do not think Dumbledore died prior to the AK. He was still talking. I don't think the hand injury killed him because I don't think the injury extended beyond the hand and it was always described as "dead looking." I don't think the cave potion killed him because Dumbledore was described, IMO, looking drowsy and/or tired and he was able to overcome those effects when he needed to. Plus, Dumbledore said Voldemort wouldn't kill the intruder right away. If it was slow acting then Dumbledore didn't succumb to the poison ‘til after the AK. Just my opinion, of course.
Madam P. Do you “warsh” your clothes as well? Thom
LOL!! Yes, and my husband changed the ”tars” on our Chevy, which is up on blocks. My mother-in-law was from Arkansas and actually talked like this. I loved that woman.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 7, 2006 8:45 am (#694 of 1629)
On first read through, when I just took it for granted that DD was dead, I assumed the blood on his mouth was a result of falling very far. I did wonder about the eyes, but then why not? He wasn't afraid of death and may have even known it would happen that very night. As for it throwing him over the wall, maybe Snape really, really hated him and put alot into it! No, I'm not just trying to be difficult! I really hope Snape turns out to be tragically misunderstood!
Hillbillies are allowed? Oh joy! Just please don't start saying things like "we was going to". My Mom is perfectly able to speak correctly but since moving back to a small town she has caught the Hillbilly grammar and it drives me crazy!!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 9:51 am (#695 of 1629)
Another problem I have with the "oddities" theory is—never mind the readers-- this whole show was put on in front of a group of Death Eaters who probably know a bit about what an Unforgivable Curse should look like, and who will likely report the night's activities in minute detail to the world's foremost expert on Dark Magic. Not to mention the large number of students who got to see the dead body of Dumbledore, and some of those students are children of Death Eaters who will be able to report their observations to their parents.
Any "oddity" we think we've spotted would have been spotted by a Death Eater ten times faster.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 10:05 am (#696 of 1629)
Well, they're really not the brightest bunch....
I agree the AK may behave differently, as other curses do as well. Harry uses a spell (impedimenta, I think) just after this, on a DE and the description of him flying up in the air and slumping down the wall is similar.
It is the totality of all the oddities that it is hard to ignore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 10:16 am (#697 of 1629)
It is the totality of all the oddities that it is hard to ignore.
I agree. A DE might discount the one oddity of DD being propelled up and backward over the wall. But the DE's wouldn't know that DD's eyes were open at the bottom, that his glasses were only askew, or that he was bleeding from the mouth.
Besides, most people (DE's or good guys) are going to assume that what they saw was what really happened -- regardless of the anomalies. The readers are the same way. An AK was fired, DD went over the edge, a funeral resulted -- therefore as far as the DE's are concerned, one slight peculiarity of the propelling nature of the AK wouldn't cause them to doubt that DD was dead.
Similarly, the good guys run up and find DD lying on the ground, unresponsive, I assume they checked his pulse, apparently dead. Harry tells them he saw Snape AK DD. Why would they care if there were peculiarities such as blood coming from his mouth, or glasses askew, or his eyes open? As far as they are concerned, he's dead and Harry saw the AK. That's it, open and shut, case closed. What more do they need?
The only reason there would be to second guess the whole thing is if one believes that DD and Snape were working together. Once either a character or the reader reaches that conclusion, then the questions start coming. It's at that point that a character (good or bad) could begin to re-evaluate the whole incident and notice the odd things about it and start to wonder "is DD really buried in that tomb or have we all been set up?"
A character might also begin to second-guess things if they knew about DD's, "Severus, please..." but I don't think Harry told anyone about that and Harry himself isn't one to re-evaluate what he thinks he knows without some major outside input.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Weeny Owl - Nov 7, 2006 10:25 am (#698 of 1629)
why the AK picked him up and threw him off the tower,
Which is a significant part of WHY I believe Dumbledore was already dead before Snape cast the Avada Kedavra. Even if he wasn't dead, Snape already showed us in CoS that his Expelliarmus could throw a person quite far, while Lupin's Expelliarmus in PoA simply disarmed the trio, but the combined Expelliarmus threw Snape and knocked him out.
As for the other things, blood wasn't exactly flowing from Dumbledore's mouth. A trickle isn't quite the same, and dead bodies can bleed for a bit. His glasses stayed on but weren't perfectly in place; Harry adjusted them on Dumbledore's face. His eyes being closed really isn't odd either, especially if he was already dead, but even so, if he was expecting it, while the Riddles and Cedric weren't, then him closing his eyes would merely be an acceptance of the inevitable.
I don't find any of these things particularly odd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 10:31 am (#699 of 1629)
Why would they care if there were peculiarities such as blood coming from his mouth, or glasses askew, or his eyes open?—wynnleaf
Let me ask this: if these are peculiarities (setting aside the fact that I don't find these things peculiar), why do they exist? If it is an odd thing for blood to trickle out of Dumbledore's mouth, than why is it doing so? If it is odd for the AK to knock Dumbledore off the Tower, then if this is a set up it is stupid to knock Dumbledore off the Tower. If Dumbledore's eyes shouldn't be closed, then isn't Dumbledore being sloppy by closing them? If Dumbledore's glasses should fly off and break, then why didn't he make sure they flew off and broke?
There was some talk about Rowling being "sloppy" for including this stuff if it turns out they weren't clues to a conspiracy. But aren't the conspirators then being incredibly sloppy? Isn't it a bit much to expect the Death Eaters, the students, and the Order to overlook these "peculiarities"?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 10:34 am (#700 of 1629)
I do find Harry's glasses falling off when he falls down in the MoM, and DD's not after a 90 foot fall, odd.
M brisbee- Yes, it is sloppy! We have an example of a dramatic but sloppily staged 'death'. SLUGHORN! Think he may have been nervous and sweaty because he was busy before getting to DD's office...
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 11:29 am (#676 of 1629)
DD did underestimate how deep Snape's wounds are...if DD is wrong about Snape, it will be this, I think, not that Snape was always a DE.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 6, 2006 11:59 am (#677 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 6, 2006 12:00 pm
The passage I was thinking of is in HBP on page 197 (hard).
During their first "lesson" DD tells Harry, "Naturally I do, but as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."
So I realize he may be in part referring to the events mentioned in OoP, I just have to wonder what else he is capable of being mistaken about. Snape perhaps? Although, I do get the idea mentioned in teh post above about how DD was mistaken about the depth of Snape's resentment.
Now I really, really have to go!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 6, 2006 6:15 pm (#678 of 1629)
Dumbledore - "Naturally I do, but as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."
Is there such a word as "huger"? Since Dumbledore made what I consider a grammatical error in describing his mistakes, I figured he was also in error about the size of his mistakes.
# *leaves to take some aspirin**
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 6:23 pm (#679 of 1629)
Yup, huger is a word, as is hugest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 6, 2006 6:56 pm (#680 of 1629)
I am glad you said that,T. I have used that word before and thought for a moment how hillbilly I might have sounded.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 6, 2006 8:19 pm (#681 of 1629)
Madam P. Do you “warsh” your clothes as well?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:32 pm (#682 of 1629)
Now isn't this interesting...
In POA Harry falls 50 feet from his broom when the dementors swarm the quidditch pitch.
I thought he was dead for sure.
But he didn't even break his glasses.
A bit later...
He(DD) ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground....
OK. Those who saw Harry fall said it was the scariest thing they had ever seen, and, they are surprised Harry didn't die. This from a fall of 50 feet, with DD slowing his fall.
DD falls 90 feet and his glasses are a bit crooked.
There are only a few possible conclusions here:
1) Jo put this in knowing what was coming in book 6. We are introduced to a spell that slows freefall, and the idea that glasses could have broken from 50 feet, but didn't, thanks, I would guess to DD's intervention. CLUE.
2) Jo got sloppy.
3) Jo decided that a picturesque and symbolic death trumps the reality she has already established.
M pomfrey- This is the Forum! Hillbillies (and everyone else) welcome! (But, I confess, 'hillbilly' has never entered my mind when reading any of your posts).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 6, 2006 9:41 pm (#683 of 1629)
T Vrana said: "I almost get the sense that Jo was annoyed that DD's death was the big question, and that she took some pleasure in shooting down the DD is not dead website. "If she has planned this all along (16 years) as one of the key surprises in Book 7, and we're not buying it after all she put DD through, I can see her being a bit perturbed ...and perhaps misleading..."
I agree with this completely, especially if she went out of her way to write it so she would NOT have the same arguments going on that we had after Sirius died. If she thought, "Okay, I'll give them a body and a funeral, and a tomb this time, and that will be that!" and we're still arguing, I think it could very well be annoying.
There are very strong similarities, both to the situation (Jo saying she didn't want to kill Sirius, but there was a reason) and to the fan's reaction. “Dumbledore-is-not-dead” is really "Sirius Part II" in many ways as I see it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Saracene - Nov 6, 2006 11:01 pm (#684 of 1629)
---During their first "lesson" DD tells Harry," Naturally I do, but as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."---
Well, personally I think that at least one of those huge mistakes was underestimating lil' Draco's ingenuity and belief that Hogwarts could not be broken into from the outside. I think that the presence of Death Eaters stuffed up DD's plans baaaad.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 12:31 am (#685 of 1629)
T Vrana --OK. Those who saw Harry fall said it was the scariest thing they had ever seen, and, they are surprised Harry didn't die. This from a fall of 50 feet, with DD slowing his fall.
DD falls 90 feet and his glasses are a bit crooked.
There are only a few possible conclusions here:
1) Jo put this in knowing what was coming in book 6. We are introduced to a spell that slows freefall, and the idea that glasses could have broken from 50 feet, but didn't, thanks, I would guess to DD's intervention. CLUE.
2) Jo got sloppy.
3) Jo decided that a picturesque and symbolic death trumps the reality she has already established.--
From my post #276:
--It could also be that Dumbledore had some magic on his glasses. We know that Harry's glasses have been enchanted so as not to break and so that rain doesn't stick to the lenses. We know that a fifty foot drop didn't break Harry's glasses (I'm thinking the "Impervius" charm Hermione used made them unbreakable, but I'm not sure), but then again Dumbledore did something to make Harry fall slower. Still, it seems that Dumbledore's glasses may have been magical themselves as he looks at Harry and Ron under the invisibility cloak through them, as if he could see the kids through the lenses, so maybe he's "Impervius"-ed them so they wouldn't absorb shock and thus not break....--
Anyway, I just wanted to share that because I'm thinking that, if Dumbledore's glasses had indeed been enchanted to see magic or things which might be invisible they would be rather valuable and thus he'd have put some spell on them to keep them safe, similar to how Hermione put a spell on Harry's classes to make them impervious to water (and possibly other things as well, I noticed they didn't break when Draco stomped on his face in HBP).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 7:14 am (#686 of 1629)
Well, personally I think that at least one of those huge mistakes was underestimating lil' Draco's ingenuity and belief that Hogwarts could not be broken into from the outside. I think that the presence of Death Eaters stuffed up DD's plans baaaad. (Saracene)
Um, DD was expecting someone to get into the castle. Why else would he have Order members stationed within Hogwarts -- even bringing back Lupin from his werewolf mission?
--It could also be that Dumbledore had some magic on his glasses. (S.E.Jones)
For the purposes of my comments below, "oddities" are not things for which one can find no explanation. "Oddities" are things which deviate from the usual way JKR has had things occur in the past in her world, OR things that deviate from what would normally happen in the real world.
If an author has something odd happen knowing that it is odd (it's not just being sloppy), then the reader should expect the writer to eventually explain the oddity, either directly where the narration or a character specifically explains it, or indirectly where truths are revealed that explain the earlier oddities.
If DD's death is exactly as it appeared in HBP -- he was really AK'd and really free-fell to the bottom of the tower -- then there will be no real opportunity for JKR to give us extra details to explain oddities like why DD's eye's were closed, why his glasses stayed on, why the AK picked him up and threw him off the tower, blood flowing from mouth, etc. No amount of ideas on our part will really work to explain these oddities because they won't be explained in the future.
If JKR has intentionally written these oddities, she should explain them. But if DD's death was straightforward, there's no opportunity or internal plot mechanism to explain them. Think about it -- if DD is completely dead and in his grave and he died on that tower, then there's no plot reason why any character or narration is ever going to re-visit how DD's glasses stayed on his head, or why his eyes were closed, or why that AK acted so differently from the rest, etc.
If she did not intentionally write these anomalies, then she was being somewhat sloppy because she deviated from the earlier parameters that she'd outlined for the way things work in her world, or the way things actually happen in the real world.
If she wrote them intentionally and will explain the oddities in the future, it almost certainly is because DD did not die a straightforward death that night, because that would be the only excuse to explain those anomalies within the plot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 7:41 am (#687 of 1629)
If DD's death is exactly as it appeared in HBP -- he was really AK'd and really free-fell to the bottom of the tower -- then we cannot expect JKR to give us extra details to explain oddities like why DD's eye's were closed, why his glasses stayed on, why the AK picked him up and threw him off the tower, blood flowing from mouth, etc. No amount of ideas on our part will really work to explain these oddities because they won't be explained in the future.
If JKR has intentionally written these oddities, she should explain them. But if DD's death was straightforward, there's no opportunity or internal plot mechanism to explain them. – wynnleaf
I agree. But, if S.E. Jones's idea of Dumbledore's glasses being enchanted does prove correct, there will be a mechanism to explain that in book 7.
If she did not intentionally write these anomalies, then she was being somewhat sloppy because she deviated from the earlier parameters that she'd outlined for the way things work in her world, or the way things actually happen in the real world.-- wynnleaf
Actually, I find almost all of those things on the list to fit easily within the parameters established earlier in the series. The one exception might be the glasses. If this was Real Life I wouldn't blink twice over them not falling off, because I have found Real Life to be a lot more complex and unpredictable than fiction. Many times a writer has to conform to what her readers will expect to happen just to create a false sense of reality, because real life could create much more wild and strange scenarios. It seems that there are a lot of people who expect that Dumbledore should have lost his glasses. I'm not one of them, so I have a hard time seeing this as sloppy writing, but I guess others do see it that way, but that's okay. There are several things from earlier in the series that Rowling has yet to explain to my satisfaction, and I don't think she ever will.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 7:48 am (#688 of 1629)
Actually, I find almost all of those things on the list to fit easily within the parameters established earlier in the series. (Mrs. Brisbee).
By parameters, I include the way JKR has described things happening in other instances in the books, even if she didn't specifically say "this is that way it must be." For instance, in other AK's -- whether we see them directly in the books or whether they are described by other characters -- the victims, if their eyes were mentioned, had their eyes open and staring. To have DD's eyes closed, without any explanation for why this situation is different, is deviating from her parameters. We can guess all sorts of excuses, but without JKR having said why his eyes were closed, and with all other descriptions of AK's mentioning eyes to describe them as wide and staring, we have a deviation from the parameters.
The same goes for an AK that throws its victim up and over a wall. No other AKs that hit a person caused that kind of thing to occur. Just because we can imagine some reason for it to occur does not get JKR off the hook from breaking parameters she has set without any explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 7:55 am (#689 of 1629)
And, Harry lost his glasses just falling down in the MoM, during LVs attempted possession. But 90 feet has no effect on DD's glasses? I agree with Wynnleaf, how is Jo going to explain this if DD is dead? No one questioned it in book 6, so if DD is dead, why bring it up in book 7? And, if it won't be explained, that's sloppy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 7:59 am (#690 of 1629)
breaking parameters –wynnleaf
Let me disagree. You are arguing that all AKs must work in a certain way. I am arguing that all spells that hit with excessive power must work in a certain way. We are both within parameters. What happens when the two established effects collide? In my opinion, Dumbledore should be dead and knocked off the wall.
As for eyes open, I remember discussing patterns a while back. There is actually variation in how different people met the AK spell-- it is not uniform. Unless AK causes eyes to open, there is actually no reason to expect eyes to be open. Instead I think Rowling has shown with each AK how the victim has reacted to meeting Death.
These are not "excuses", these are me looking at the parameters already established. We just see those parameters differently.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 8:06 am (#691 of 1629)
Let me disagree. You are arguing that all AKs must work in a certain way. I am arguing that all spells that hit with excessive power must work in a certain way. We are both within parameters. What happens when the two established effects collide? In my opinion, Dumbledore should be dead and knocked off the wall.
Hm. I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that an AK must work in a certain way. I'm saying that JKR has never before shown it acting differently when it hits its victim. Every other described AK that hit a human, dropped them where they stood. That's the parameter -- what JKR has heretofore described, versus what she had happen to DD.
Same goes for the eyes. Prior to DD, JKR did not have one single description of an AK victim with their eyes closed. She had several with eyes wide and staring, including as I recall at least one description of an "off page" AK. Then there's DD with eyes closed. This was a first for all the descriptions. Therefore it broke her already established descriptive pattern.
No she has never set specific rules for what happens to eyes or how the AK affects the body -- but she did have several descriptions which were very similar and then the description of DD which is different from the other descriptions without explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 8:15 am (#692 of 1629)
By variation, I meant the entirety of how they looked--not just the eyes.
The Riddles had looks of horror on their faces, while Cedric simply looked surprised. I don't think those reactions are interchangeable. And I think this goes toward my view that the totality of the victim's expression shows how they reacted to Death. Eyes open or eyes closed would by part of their expression or reaction. I see the reaction as Rowling's descriptive pattern, not just eye open/eye closed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 7, 2006 8:22 am (#693 of 1629)
I find the whole situation odd. That's why I maintain, for now, that Dumbledore did not die at the end of HBP. If he did, I hope she answers all the questions on why she deviated from her normal AK.I do not think Dumbledore died prior to the AK. He was still talking. I don't think the hand injury killed him because I don't think the injury extended beyond the hand and it was always described as "dead looking." I don't think the cave potion killed him because Dumbledore was described, IMO, looking drowsy and/or tired and he was able to overcome those effects when he needed to. Plus, Dumbledore said Voldemort wouldn't kill the intruder right away. If it was slow acting then Dumbledore didn't succumb to the poison ‘til after the AK. Just my opinion, of course.
Madam P. Do you “warsh” your clothes as well? Thom
LOL!! Yes, and my husband changed the ”tars” on our Chevy, which is up on blocks. My mother-in-law was from Arkansas and actually talked like this. I loved that woman.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 7, 2006 8:45 am (#694 of 1629)
On first read through, when I just took it for granted that DD was dead, I assumed the blood on his mouth was a result of falling very far. I did wonder about the eyes, but then why not? He wasn't afraid of death and may have even known it would happen that very night. As for it throwing him over the wall, maybe Snape really, really hated him and put alot into it! No, I'm not just trying to be difficult! I really hope Snape turns out to be tragically misunderstood!
Hillbillies are allowed? Oh joy! Just please don't start saying things like "we was going to". My Mom is perfectly able to speak correctly but since moving back to a small town she has caught the Hillbilly grammar and it drives me crazy!!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 9:51 am (#695 of 1629)
Another problem I have with the "oddities" theory is—never mind the readers-- this whole show was put on in front of a group of Death Eaters who probably know a bit about what an Unforgivable Curse should look like, and who will likely report the night's activities in minute detail to the world's foremost expert on Dark Magic. Not to mention the large number of students who got to see the dead body of Dumbledore, and some of those students are children of Death Eaters who will be able to report their observations to their parents.
Any "oddity" we think we've spotted would have been spotted by a Death Eater ten times faster.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 10:05 am (#696 of 1629)
Well, they're really not the brightest bunch....
I agree the AK may behave differently, as other curses do as well. Harry uses a spell (impedimenta, I think) just after this, on a DE and the description of him flying up in the air and slumping down the wall is similar.
It is the totality of all the oddities that it is hard to ignore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 10:16 am (#697 of 1629)
It is the totality of all the oddities that it is hard to ignore.
I agree. A DE might discount the one oddity of DD being propelled up and backward over the wall. But the DE's wouldn't know that DD's eyes were open at the bottom, that his glasses were only askew, or that he was bleeding from the mouth.
Besides, most people (DE's or good guys) are going to assume that what they saw was what really happened -- regardless of the anomalies. The readers are the same way. An AK was fired, DD went over the edge, a funeral resulted -- therefore as far as the DE's are concerned, one slight peculiarity of the propelling nature of the AK wouldn't cause them to doubt that DD was dead.
Similarly, the good guys run up and find DD lying on the ground, unresponsive, I assume they checked his pulse, apparently dead. Harry tells them he saw Snape AK DD. Why would they care if there were peculiarities such as blood coming from his mouth, or glasses askew, or his eyes open? As far as they are concerned, he's dead and Harry saw the AK. That's it, open and shut, case closed. What more do they need?
The only reason there would be to second guess the whole thing is if one believes that DD and Snape were working together. Once either a character or the reader reaches that conclusion, then the questions start coming. It's at that point that a character (good or bad) could begin to re-evaluate the whole incident and notice the odd things about it and start to wonder "is DD really buried in that tomb or have we all been set up?"
A character might also begin to second-guess things if they knew about DD's, "Severus, please..." but I don't think Harry told anyone about that and Harry himself isn't one to re-evaluate what he thinks he knows without some major outside input.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Weeny Owl - Nov 7, 2006 10:25 am (#698 of 1629)
why the AK picked him up and threw him off the tower,
Which is a significant part of WHY I believe Dumbledore was already dead before Snape cast the Avada Kedavra. Even if he wasn't dead, Snape already showed us in CoS that his Expelliarmus could throw a person quite far, while Lupin's Expelliarmus in PoA simply disarmed the trio, but the combined Expelliarmus threw Snape and knocked him out.
As for the other things, blood wasn't exactly flowing from Dumbledore's mouth. A trickle isn't quite the same, and dead bodies can bleed for a bit. His glasses stayed on but weren't perfectly in place; Harry adjusted them on Dumbledore's face. His eyes being closed really isn't odd either, especially if he was already dead, but even so, if he was expecting it, while the Riddles and Cedric weren't, then him closing his eyes would merely be an acceptance of the inevitable.
I don't find any of these things particularly odd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 10:31 am (#699 of 1629)
Why would they care if there were peculiarities such as blood coming from his mouth, or glasses askew, or his eyes open?—wynnleaf
Let me ask this: if these are peculiarities (setting aside the fact that I don't find these things peculiar), why do they exist? If it is an odd thing for blood to trickle out of Dumbledore's mouth, than why is it doing so? If it is odd for the AK to knock Dumbledore off the Tower, then if this is a set up it is stupid to knock Dumbledore off the Tower. If Dumbledore's eyes shouldn't be closed, then isn't Dumbledore being sloppy by closing them? If Dumbledore's glasses should fly off and break, then why didn't he make sure they flew off and broke?
There was some talk about Rowling being "sloppy" for including this stuff if it turns out they weren't clues to a conspiracy. But aren't the conspirators then being incredibly sloppy? Isn't it a bit much to expect the Death Eaters, the students, and the Order to overlook these "peculiarities"?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 10:34 am (#700 of 1629)
I do find Harry's glasses falling off when he falls down in the MoM, and DD's not after a 90 foot fall, odd.
M brisbee- Yes, it is sloppy! We have an example of a dramatic but sloppily staged 'death'. SLUGHORN! Think he may have been nervous and sweaty because he was busy before getting to DD's office...
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 701 to 725
Lady Arabella Wed May 18, 2011 9:04 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 10:58 am (#701 of 1629)
M brisbee- Yes, it is sloppy!
But that's my point: if it is sloppy, why would anyone fall for it?
The Death Eaters? No way!
McGonagall? Maybe. No evidence that she was a member of the old Order, and she has jumped to wrong conclusions before.
Bill? Possibly. I don't know enough about Bill.
Hagrid? Member of the old Order, so I'd think he'd have seen his share of AK victims. Mmmmmaybe. But I doubt it.
Lupin, a member of the old Order, and former DADA professor? I seriously doubt it.
Tonks, a trained Auror? I really, really doubt it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 7, 2006 11:02 am (#702 of 1629)
I agree if this stuff means nothing, it isn't going to be explained. And if it means nothing, I think it's sloppy. I think a lot of things are sloppy and will not be explained, and that rabid fans will do anything to excuse them. (Visit the thread on what was odd about the book, if you haven't yet!) That's just how I feel. Anyone else can take it any way they want. Jo was not a professional writer when she started this, and once she started making money, I doubt if her editors would say, "Boo!" to her. Maybe I’m wrong. We'll find out the truth, about her writing, and about Dumbledore's death, eventually. They're a good read, even if they aren't perfect, but we don't have to call everything perfect if it's odd to us, like this death is.
I certainly agree that the Death Eaters are not a bright bunch. I'm surprised anyone was afraid of them, but if Dumbledore knew they were coming in and let them, it was a major mistake that led to his death, never mind how accepting he was of death in general.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 11:02 am (#703 of 1629)
M brisbee- No one except Hagrid and Harry saw the body as far as we know. The AK can work, I agree. The rest was only seen by Harry and Hagrid, and Harry wiped the blood from DD's face, and fixed his glasses. He saw DD AK'd and has no reason to question the death. Hagrid was too caught up in his grief.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 7, 2006 11:04 am (#704 of 1629)
There was a whole crowd standing around that body, if I remember correctly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 11:08 am (#705 of 1629)
DIE- Yes, a whole crowd of kids. I got the impression that Harry and Hagrid were the first to get close to DD, and Harry erased the blood and glasses evidence. Hagrid took care of the body.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 11:08 am (#706 of 1629)
T Vrana, when Hagrid and Harry reached Dumbledore's body, it was already surrounded by a large group of students and teachers. Plenty of people saw the body, and saw Harry wipe away the blood.
Edit: Crossposting!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 11:16 am (#707 of 1629)
I had the impression that Hagrid was the first member of the Order to get close to DD, and he was immediately consumed by his grief. It was such a huge catastrophe, I can see the small things being overlooked.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 11:20 am (#708 of 1629)
If DD was staging his death there were several things he couldn't afford:
1. He couldn't afford to stay on top of the tower for any DE's to closely investigate the body -- because he had not yet succumbed to Draught of Living Death and lost consciousness,so Snape would need to use a nonverbal spell to get him over the edge.
2. He couldn't keep his eyes open because his eyes would move and everyone would know he wasn't dead. Even a full body bind doesn't still the eyes. Also, once he took DoLD, his eyes would naturally be closed. He'd have to count on people being so convinced he was dead, they wouldn't question his eyes being closed (hey, that turned out right, didn't it?).
3. The glasses don't matter much since nobody's going to question them being only askew if they think DD's dead. The blood -- well notice that DD was quite interested in Slughorn's use of blood to fake a death scene.
Apparently millions of people have read HBP and been convinced, despite the anomalies, that DD was dead. That's because most people look at the obvious and assume it's true, especially if there's a body and a funeral (even if they don't actually see the body at the funeral). The characters could be trusted to react just the same way and DD would know that.
Like I said, as long as the good guys seem to believe he's dead and appear to bury him, then nobody was going to question it. The only way anyone would question it is if they started to think Snape was really on the Order's side, or they heard about DD's last words to Snape.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 12:47 pm (#709 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- I agree with all, except, I don't think DoLD was part of the plan I think that was a surprise.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plee - Nov 7, 2006 3:04 pm (#710 of 1629)
This thread is rather long, so I'm not sure if this was mentioned.
Jo has said that Harry's glasses are "the clue to his vulnerability."
Within the books, we see that not only are Harry's glasses important, but we also see another emphasis related to glasses.
For example, McGonagall's glasses were part of her animagus' markings.
If Minerva's glasses are an emphasis, perhaps Dumbledore's are as well.
I think Dumbledore's glasses are indeed a clue. I would find it strange that Jo would use an emphasis on glasses, if glasses are not an emphasis throughout the series.
Perhaps, we should be wondering why glasses within themselves so important? Maybe that would take us closer to the truth of what happened on that tower.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 4:59 pm (#711 of 1629)
Mrs. Brisbee --Actually, I find almost all of those things on the list to fit easily within the parameters established earlier in the series. The one exception might be the glasses. If this was Real Life I wouldn't blink twice over them not falling off, because I have found Real Life to be a lot more complex and unpredictable than fiction. Many times a writer has to conform to what her readers will expect to happen just to create a false sense of reality, because real life could create much more wild and strange scenarios. It seems that there are a lot of people who expect that Dumbledore should have lost his glasses. I'm not one of them, so I have a hard time seeing this as sloppy writing, but I guess others do see it that way, but that's okay. There are several things from earlier in the series that Rowling has yet to explain to my satisfaction, and I don't think she ever will.--
I have to completely agree with Mrs. Brisbee's remarks, both the ones I quoted above and those following it. I just don't see what others are calling "oddities" as deviating from what has been established already in the books. The Riddles faces were horrified because of what they saw just before they died, Cedric's face was in shock because of what he saw before he died, Dumbledore's eyes were closed and his face had no particular emotion because he knew what was coming just before he died. I have a similar way of looking at all the "oddities" mentioned. They just aren't that "odd" to me. And it isn't because I just take what's written, the most obvious, and am happy with it, I'd think the sheer fact that I belong to this forum would prove that, but, even with contemplation, I just don't see these things deviating from we already know about JKR's writing and world.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 5:28 pm (#712 of 1629)
From my post earlier:
For the purposes of my comments below, "oddities" are not things for which one can find no explanation. "Oddities" are things which deviate from the usual way JKR has had things occur in the past in her world, OR things that deviate from what would normally happen in the real world.
Until someone can point us toward where else JKR shows an AK victim with eyes closed, or being propelled strongly across a space, then these remain the first and only examples we have of an AK having these effects. Further, it's the first AK victim who bleeds. The first AK victim who appears like a person sleeping.
Lots of firsts there. One "first" is not particularly notable. Several are, particularly since they are all without explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 5:47 pm (#713 of 1629)
So, he bleeds after falling from a tower and you think it "odd"? The blood was probably far more likely to have come from the impact and not the AK, so I still can't call this odd. If the body didn't break open, and not all do, then the blood would slowly flow out as the internal bleeding from broken bones and damaged organs caused the blood levels in his abdomin to rise. The eyes closed, we have an explanation, and we don't have anything that would contradict it as we've been given clues to show how different people look at death differently and clues that Dumbledore was expecting some of what happened on the tower.
I read your post, wynnleaf, regarding what "oddities" are, but, simply saying it can be odd even with an explanation that is backed in canon just doesn't seem logical to me. I don't think the "oddities" you list deviate from the way she writes or any patterns she's set up. We do have Frank crumpling on the ground, true, but we don't know if Cedric flew back any because Harry didn't see it but we do know that he landed on his back, spread-eagle, not crumpled in a pile on the ground. We never saw the AKs that hit James, Lily, Bertha, the Riddle family, or Hepzibah Smith. So, the only AKs we really have to judge between are Cedric's (which we didn't get to see), Frank's and Dumbledore's. As we only saw two or the three, two isn't a very good indicator of a pattern, really. Saying a canon answer doesn't take the "odd" label away because it still doesn't fit her pattern when we still don't know what the pattern is seems "odd" to me, frankly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 7:03 pm (#714 of 1629)
Well, we do know that Cedric didn't fly back. Harry and Cedric were standing next to each other, and Harry heard Cedric hit the ground next to him. His look was mild surprise. Frank crumples, as you noted. Don't forget the spider. The spider instantaneously rolled over on its back, dead.
Being picky here, but a fall from 90 feet would be more likely to cause a spatter of blood. That is blood forced form the body on impact would spatter. A trickle, which is what was described, requires, I think, a heartbeat. (I already admitted to being picky).
The glasses. If DD had used magic to keep his glasses n his head, they would have stayed put, not been crooked. They were askew just from falling down, from a kneeling position, in the cave, post yucky potion. So either DD needs some new magic on his glasses, or there isn't any. The impact should have caused them to fall off. The same impact that forced blood up from a body without a heartbeat.
Though DD knew what was coming, I do wonder if he would have closed his eyes, or kept them open. I would think he would face death fearlessly with his eyes open. Also, if he had any doubt what Snape was going to do (which the pleading implies), I would think he would keep them open, encouraging, reassuring, communicating that its ok and I need you to follow through on what we discussed. Closing them almost leaves Snape alone rather than staying with him until the end.
I agree with Wynnleaf. We have oddities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 9:09 pm (#715 of 1629)
They were standing next to each other, but Harry also kinda fell over with pain from his scar and he doesn't see exactly what happens. I wasn't suggesting that Cedric was blasted across the graveyard, but he still could've been pushed back some by the spell for all we know. My point was that he didn't just crumple the way we saw Frank do, so the spell did have a slightly different affect when Cedric fell compared to when Frank fell. I'm just saying, we only actually get to see two people (and yes, I think it's important to look at people, not spiders or foxes) get AK’ed and two isn't enough to establish a pattern.
A trickle wouldn't require a heartbeat. As the body bleeds out more and more internally for the injuries sustained from the fall, the blood would slowly trickle out, without stopping, for a while after death. The fact that his body didn't break open upon impact is odd but not unheard of. As wizards seem to be a little more durable than Muggles, I wouldn't be surprised if some of that magical durability is still there, even after death. Also being nitpicky.
And I wasn't suggesting the magic kept the glasses in place, but that magic may be keeping magical glasses from breaking.
It seems we may just have to agree to disagree on the whole "oddities" thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Weeny Owl - Nov 7, 2006 10:58 pm (#716 of 1629)
As for the glasses, it could simply be a matter of the frames. Some glasses fall off easily (my ordinary ones do), while others curve more around the ear (as with my prescription sunglasses). If I lean over wearing my ordinary glasses, then slip down my nose, but my sunglasses could easily be attached with superglue.
Nothing about Dumbledore's death seems odd to me, but what led up to it sure does.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 11:57 pm (#717 of 1629)
That's the way I feel Weeny, the lead up is odd, but the death isn't.
And my prescription glasses don't fall off easily either. I've been wearing glasses for around 25 years now and only had them fly off like twice, both times being hit in the face with something that caught them just right, otherwise they do the whole "askew" thing that JKR describes, which really hurts as it catches both at your nose and ears.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:02 am (#718 of 1629)
SE- Do you usually wear your prescription glasses to leap off 90 foot towers? When you say they don't fall off easily I can't see how that relates to a free fall from 90 feet or more.
DD's glasses were askew when he fell over from a kneeling position, so they aren't that tightly fitted. It was a 90 foot fall, which means 50+ miles per hour on impact. There should be a difference.
Well, I guess we do have to disagree, because I think the spider counts. The effects of the curses on the spiders were consistent with humans (crucio, imperius and AK). Is see no reason to discredit what we saw in 'Moody's' demonstration. I wasn't counting the fox as we never hear the curse, but the fox also fell to earth. I was surprised it managed a yelp.
The blood thing is a bit dicey. Without knowing the exact position of the body we can't say whether gravity or a heartbeat would be required for a 'trickle'.
I agree that the oddities leading up to the death are important. I actually question the 'body' oddities more because of all the other oddities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 6:57 am (#719 of 1629)
I've worn mine swimming and diving without them coming off. No big deal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 8, 2006 7:39 am (#720 of 1629)
But, the locket came out of Dumbledore's robe pocket and even popped open. It is odd that the locket finds its way out of a pocket,(some are pretty deep)but the glasses are only slightly crooked.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 7:52 am (#721 of 1629)
Now, Thom, you aren't really comparing swimming and diving to a 90+ foot free fall onto the hard ground, are you?
M pomfrey- good point
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 8:23 am (#722 of 1629)
That is a very good point about the locket. Chalk up another inconsistency. Locket comes completely out of DD's pocket and glasses are only askew. Yes, yes, we can come up with all sorts of ways to explain it away, but it is peculiar. It's inconsistent, unless there's more reasons than just the fall to explain it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 9:05 am (#723 of 1629)
Nope, to make a comparison like that I would have to be one of those cliff diver types, and that is sooooo remote. I own a 24- foot ladder that I have never ever been on. Standing up in the back of my truck is a major event.
Just saying that my glasses rarely come off for any reason as did Sarah in her post.
I do think that Dumbledore's death is legit though. When I think of the AK curse, not only does the victim die but they seem to be frozen with the last expression on their face when the curse hits. As Dumbledore is, for my money, at peace, I think that he just closed his eyes and awaited the outcome from Snape. His body was relaxed and at peace. As far as "flying off the tower", I would suspect that because he was relaxed, the curse just sent him flying, much like a leaf off a tree in the fall. The blood trickle could just be a bit lip or tongue upon impact. I don't believe that he floated down, just fell. Again as he was "frozen" in his relaxed at peace pose that is how we see him on the ground.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 9:31 am (#724 of 1629)
As far as "flying off the tower", I would suspect that because he was relaxed, the curse just sent him flying, much like a leaf off a tree in the fall.
Thom, that might work if he was standing on the edge of a precipice and simply went over backwards. But DD was slumped down along a wall, with the wall at his back. Snape's spell (the AK or another nonverbal one), sent DD up and over the wall. And not just tipping over the side of the wall, but up into the air, so that Harry sees him seeming almost suspended for a moment before falling.
Even the spider, as light as it would be, is not propelled anywhere by the AK, but crumples.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 9:36 am (#725 of 1629)
Jo is a little inconsistent with her AK;s in another regard. When Frank Bryce and the spider are killed, there is a rushing sound. Not so with any other AKs that I can find. At first I thought maybe level of desire mattered, that is Wormtail didn't really have anything against Cedric, so no rushing sound. But when LV tries to AK Harry and hits the statue, no rushing sound, and I'm pretty sure LV really wanted to AK Harry.
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 10:58 am (#701 of 1629)
M brisbee- Yes, it is sloppy!
But that's my point: if it is sloppy, why would anyone fall for it?
The Death Eaters? No way!
McGonagall? Maybe. No evidence that she was a member of the old Order, and she has jumped to wrong conclusions before.
Bill? Possibly. I don't know enough about Bill.
Hagrid? Member of the old Order, so I'd think he'd have seen his share of AK victims. Mmmmmaybe. But I doubt it.
Lupin, a member of the old Order, and former DADA professor? I seriously doubt it.
Tonks, a trained Auror? I really, really doubt it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 7, 2006 11:02 am (#702 of 1629)
I agree if this stuff means nothing, it isn't going to be explained. And if it means nothing, I think it's sloppy. I think a lot of things are sloppy and will not be explained, and that rabid fans will do anything to excuse them. (Visit the thread on what was odd about the book, if you haven't yet!) That's just how I feel. Anyone else can take it any way they want. Jo was not a professional writer when she started this, and once she started making money, I doubt if her editors would say, "Boo!" to her. Maybe I’m wrong. We'll find out the truth, about her writing, and about Dumbledore's death, eventually. They're a good read, even if they aren't perfect, but we don't have to call everything perfect if it's odd to us, like this death is.
I certainly agree that the Death Eaters are not a bright bunch. I'm surprised anyone was afraid of them, but if Dumbledore knew they were coming in and let them, it was a major mistake that led to his death, never mind how accepting he was of death in general.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 11:02 am (#703 of 1629)
M brisbee- No one except Hagrid and Harry saw the body as far as we know. The AK can work, I agree. The rest was only seen by Harry and Hagrid, and Harry wiped the blood from DD's face, and fixed his glasses. He saw DD AK'd and has no reason to question the death. Hagrid was too caught up in his grief.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 7, 2006 11:04 am (#704 of 1629)
There was a whole crowd standing around that body, if I remember correctly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 11:08 am (#705 of 1629)
DIE- Yes, a whole crowd of kids. I got the impression that Harry and Hagrid were the first to get close to DD, and Harry erased the blood and glasses evidence. Hagrid took care of the body.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 7, 2006 11:08 am (#706 of 1629)
T Vrana, when Hagrid and Harry reached Dumbledore's body, it was already surrounded by a large group of students and teachers. Plenty of people saw the body, and saw Harry wipe away the blood.
Edit: Crossposting!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 11:16 am (#707 of 1629)
I had the impression that Hagrid was the first member of the Order to get close to DD, and he was immediately consumed by his grief. It was such a huge catastrophe, I can see the small things being overlooked.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 11:20 am (#708 of 1629)
If DD was staging his death there were several things he couldn't afford:
1. He couldn't afford to stay on top of the tower for any DE's to closely investigate the body -- because he had not yet succumbed to Draught of Living Death and lost consciousness,so Snape would need to use a nonverbal spell to get him over the edge.
2. He couldn't keep his eyes open because his eyes would move and everyone would know he wasn't dead. Even a full body bind doesn't still the eyes. Also, once he took DoLD, his eyes would naturally be closed. He'd have to count on people being so convinced he was dead, they wouldn't question his eyes being closed (hey, that turned out right, didn't it?).
3. The glasses don't matter much since nobody's going to question them being only askew if they think DD's dead. The blood -- well notice that DD was quite interested in Slughorn's use of blood to fake a death scene.
Apparently millions of people have read HBP and been convinced, despite the anomalies, that DD was dead. That's because most people look at the obvious and assume it's true, especially if there's a body and a funeral (even if they don't actually see the body at the funeral). The characters could be trusted to react just the same way and DD would know that.
Like I said, as long as the good guys seem to believe he's dead and appear to bury him, then nobody was going to question it. The only way anyone would question it is if they started to think Snape was really on the Order's side, or they heard about DD's last words to Snape.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 12:47 pm (#709 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- I agree with all, except, I don't think DoLD was part of the plan I think that was a surprise.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plee - Nov 7, 2006 3:04 pm (#710 of 1629)
This thread is rather long, so I'm not sure if this was mentioned.
Jo has said that Harry's glasses are "the clue to his vulnerability."
Within the books, we see that not only are Harry's glasses important, but we also see another emphasis related to glasses.
For example, McGonagall's glasses were part of her animagus' markings.
If Minerva's glasses are an emphasis, perhaps Dumbledore's are as well.
I think Dumbledore's glasses are indeed a clue. I would find it strange that Jo would use an emphasis on glasses, if glasses are not an emphasis throughout the series.
Perhaps, we should be wondering why glasses within themselves so important? Maybe that would take us closer to the truth of what happened on that tower.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 4:59 pm (#711 of 1629)
Mrs. Brisbee --Actually, I find almost all of those things on the list to fit easily within the parameters established earlier in the series. The one exception might be the glasses. If this was Real Life I wouldn't blink twice over them not falling off, because I have found Real Life to be a lot more complex and unpredictable than fiction. Many times a writer has to conform to what her readers will expect to happen just to create a false sense of reality, because real life could create much more wild and strange scenarios. It seems that there are a lot of people who expect that Dumbledore should have lost his glasses. I'm not one of them, so I have a hard time seeing this as sloppy writing, but I guess others do see it that way, but that's okay. There are several things from earlier in the series that Rowling has yet to explain to my satisfaction, and I don't think she ever will.--
I have to completely agree with Mrs. Brisbee's remarks, both the ones I quoted above and those following it. I just don't see what others are calling "oddities" as deviating from what has been established already in the books. The Riddles faces were horrified because of what they saw just before they died, Cedric's face was in shock because of what he saw before he died, Dumbledore's eyes were closed and his face had no particular emotion because he knew what was coming just before he died. I have a similar way of looking at all the "oddities" mentioned. They just aren't that "odd" to me. And it isn't because I just take what's written, the most obvious, and am happy with it, I'd think the sheer fact that I belong to this forum would prove that, but, even with contemplation, I just don't see these things deviating from we already know about JKR's writing and world.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 5:28 pm (#712 of 1629)
From my post earlier:
For the purposes of my comments below, "oddities" are not things for which one can find no explanation. "Oddities" are things which deviate from the usual way JKR has had things occur in the past in her world, OR things that deviate from what would normally happen in the real world.
Until someone can point us toward where else JKR shows an AK victim with eyes closed, or being propelled strongly across a space, then these remain the first and only examples we have of an AK having these effects. Further, it's the first AK victim who bleeds. The first AK victim who appears like a person sleeping.
Lots of firsts there. One "first" is not particularly notable. Several are, particularly since they are all without explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 5:47 pm (#713 of 1629)
So, he bleeds after falling from a tower and you think it "odd"? The blood was probably far more likely to have come from the impact and not the AK, so I still can't call this odd. If the body didn't break open, and not all do, then the blood would slowly flow out as the internal bleeding from broken bones and damaged organs caused the blood levels in his abdomin to rise. The eyes closed, we have an explanation, and we don't have anything that would contradict it as we've been given clues to show how different people look at death differently and clues that Dumbledore was expecting some of what happened on the tower.
I read your post, wynnleaf, regarding what "oddities" are, but, simply saying it can be odd even with an explanation that is backed in canon just doesn't seem logical to me. I don't think the "oddities" you list deviate from the way she writes or any patterns she's set up. We do have Frank crumpling on the ground, true, but we don't know if Cedric flew back any because Harry didn't see it but we do know that he landed on his back, spread-eagle, not crumpled in a pile on the ground. We never saw the AKs that hit James, Lily, Bertha, the Riddle family, or Hepzibah Smith. So, the only AKs we really have to judge between are Cedric's (which we didn't get to see), Frank's and Dumbledore's. As we only saw two or the three, two isn't a very good indicator of a pattern, really. Saying a canon answer doesn't take the "odd" label away because it still doesn't fit her pattern when we still don't know what the pattern is seems "odd" to me, frankly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 7:03 pm (#714 of 1629)
Well, we do know that Cedric didn't fly back. Harry and Cedric were standing next to each other, and Harry heard Cedric hit the ground next to him. His look was mild surprise. Frank crumples, as you noted. Don't forget the spider. The spider instantaneously rolled over on its back, dead.
Being picky here, but a fall from 90 feet would be more likely to cause a spatter of blood. That is blood forced form the body on impact would spatter. A trickle, which is what was described, requires, I think, a heartbeat. (I already admitted to being picky).
The glasses. If DD had used magic to keep his glasses n his head, they would have stayed put, not been crooked. They were askew just from falling down, from a kneeling position, in the cave, post yucky potion. So either DD needs some new magic on his glasses, or there isn't any. The impact should have caused them to fall off. The same impact that forced blood up from a body without a heartbeat.
Though DD knew what was coming, I do wonder if he would have closed his eyes, or kept them open. I would think he would face death fearlessly with his eyes open. Also, if he had any doubt what Snape was going to do (which the pleading implies), I would think he would keep them open, encouraging, reassuring, communicating that its ok and I need you to follow through on what we discussed. Closing them almost leaves Snape alone rather than staying with him until the end.
I agree with Wynnleaf. We have oddities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 9:09 pm (#715 of 1629)
They were standing next to each other, but Harry also kinda fell over with pain from his scar and he doesn't see exactly what happens. I wasn't suggesting that Cedric was blasted across the graveyard, but he still could've been pushed back some by the spell for all we know. My point was that he didn't just crumple the way we saw Frank do, so the spell did have a slightly different affect when Cedric fell compared to when Frank fell. I'm just saying, we only actually get to see two people (and yes, I think it's important to look at people, not spiders or foxes) get AK’ed and two isn't enough to establish a pattern.
A trickle wouldn't require a heartbeat. As the body bleeds out more and more internally for the injuries sustained from the fall, the blood would slowly trickle out, without stopping, for a while after death. The fact that his body didn't break open upon impact is odd but not unheard of. As wizards seem to be a little more durable than Muggles, I wouldn't be surprised if some of that magical durability is still there, even after death. Also being nitpicky.
And I wasn't suggesting the magic kept the glasses in place, but that magic may be keeping magical glasses from breaking.
It seems we may just have to agree to disagree on the whole "oddities" thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Weeny Owl - Nov 7, 2006 10:58 pm (#716 of 1629)
As for the glasses, it could simply be a matter of the frames. Some glasses fall off easily (my ordinary ones do), while others curve more around the ear (as with my prescription sunglasses). If I lean over wearing my ordinary glasses, then slip down my nose, but my sunglasses could easily be attached with superglue.
Nothing about Dumbledore's death seems odd to me, but what led up to it sure does.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 11:57 pm (#717 of 1629)
That's the way I feel Weeny, the lead up is odd, but the death isn't.
And my prescription glasses don't fall off easily either. I've been wearing glasses for around 25 years now and only had them fly off like twice, both times being hit in the face with something that caught them just right, otherwise they do the whole "askew" thing that JKR describes, which really hurts as it catches both at your nose and ears.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:02 am (#718 of 1629)
SE- Do you usually wear your prescription glasses to leap off 90 foot towers? When you say they don't fall off easily I can't see how that relates to a free fall from 90 feet or more.
DD's glasses were askew when he fell over from a kneeling position, so they aren't that tightly fitted. It was a 90 foot fall, which means 50+ miles per hour on impact. There should be a difference.
Well, I guess we do have to disagree, because I think the spider counts. The effects of the curses on the spiders were consistent with humans (crucio, imperius and AK). Is see no reason to discredit what we saw in 'Moody's' demonstration. I wasn't counting the fox as we never hear the curse, but the fox also fell to earth. I was surprised it managed a yelp.
The blood thing is a bit dicey. Without knowing the exact position of the body we can't say whether gravity or a heartbeat would be required for a 'trickle'.
I agree that the oddities leading up to the death are important. I actually question the 'body' oddities more because of all the other oddities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 6:57 am (#719 of 1629)
I've worn mine swimming and diving without them coming off. No big deal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 8, 2006 7:39 am (#720 of 1629)
But, the locket came out of Dumbledore's robe pocket and even popped open. It is odd that the locket finds its way out of a pocket,(some are pretty deep)but the glasses are only slightly crooked.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 7:52 am (#721 of 1629)
Now, Thom, you aren't really comparing swimming and diving to a 90+ foot free fall onto the hard ground, are you?
M pomfrey- good point
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 8:23 am (#722 of 1629)
That is a very good point about the locket. Chalk up another inconsistency. Locket comes completely out of DD's pocket and glasses are only askew. Yes, yes, we can come up with all sorts of ways to explain it away, but it is peculiar. It's inconsistent, unless there's more reasons than just the fall to explain it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 9:05 am (#723 of 1629)
Nope, to make a comparison like that I would have to be one of those cliff diver types, and that is sooooo remote. I own a 24- foot ladder that I have never ever been on. Standing up in the back of my truck is a major event.
Just saying that my glasses rarely come off for any reason as did Sarah in her post.
I do think that Dumbledore's death is legit though. When I think of the AK curse, not only does the victim die but they seem to be frozen with the last expression on their face when the curse hits. As Dumbledore is, for my money, at peace, I think that he just closed his eyes and awaited the outcome from Snape. His body was relaxed and at peace. As far as "flying off the tower", I would suspect that because he was relaxed, the curse just sent him flying, much like a leaf off a tree in the fall. The blood trickle could just be a bit lip or tongue upon impact. I don't believe that he floated down, just fell. Again as he was "frozen" in his relaxed at peace pose that is how we see him on the ground.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 9:31 am (#724 of 1629)
As far as "flying off the tower", I would suspect that because he was relaxed, the curse just sent him flying, much like a leaf off a tree in the fall.
Thom, that might work if he was standing on the edge of a precipice and simply went over backwards. But DD was slumped down along a wall, with the wall at his back. Snape's spell (the AK or another nonverbal one), sent DD up and over the wall. And not just tipping over the side of the wall, but up into the air, so that Harry sees him seeming almost suspended for a moment before falling.
Even the spider, as light as it would be, is not propelled anywhere by the AK, but crumples.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 9:36 am (#725 of 1629)
Jo is a little inconsistent with her AK;s in another regard. When Frank Bryce and the spider are killed, there is a rushing sound. Not so with any other AKs that I can find. At first I thought maybe level of desire mattered, that is Wormtail didn't really have anything against Cedric, so no rushing sound. But when LV tries to AK Harry and hits the statue, no rushing sound, and I'm pretty sure LV really wanted to AK Harry.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 726 to 750
Lady Arabella Wed May 18, 2011 9:10 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 10:00 am (#726 of 1629)
T Vrana,
In my opinion there is a difference between several descriptions which are mostly the same, but one or more aspects of what is described in some instances is not mentioned at all in others; versus descriptions which are actively different and parts of the description in one event are the opposite of what is described in the other events.
For instance, eyes open versus eyes closed is an inconsistency. Eyes open versus no mention of eyes would not be an inconsistent description, because the reader could imagine that the eyes were still opened, the writer had simply not mentioned it.
Similarly, a rushing noise heard in two AK's, but not mentioned in later ones doesn't mean the noise was not there, but only that it was not noted in the narration. If however, the narration had said in the later instances that there was no noise, then we might take note and wonder why.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 10:04 am (#727 of 1629)
I agree with your point, and since I can't find a pattern, will have to let the lack of a 'rushing noise' go.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 10:40 am (#728 of 1629)
I don't think we have enough of anything with regard to the AK (aside from the fact it takes a life and has a great deal of power behind it) to dictate a pattern. We hear about the eyes in three cases (Riddles, Cedric, and Dumbledore) but don't see two of them actually get cast (the Riddles and Cedric - we just hear the incantation and the body hitting the ground) and the one we do see differs (Dumbledore's eyes are closed not open). We only see the bodily results of three cases (Frank, Cedric, and Dumbledore), one of which we only see after the fact not during the casting of the spell (we hear Cedric's body hit the ground and then see him on his back spread-eagle) and the two we do see differ (Frank just crumples and Dumbledore flies back over the wall).
say we can't count the spider and fox because there are too many potential variables that differ between killing an insect/animal and killing a human that could skew the end result. The spider's body physically moves when hit (it rolls onto its back and its legs curl up) and the fox falls back to the earth (we don't know if it was the exact location where it jumped up from or if it was shoved back a little).
Plus, if we're dealing with magic and the spell needs a lot of magic behind it (as Moody/Crouch put it) then the amount of magic in the victim and caster may actually come into play (Dumbledore had more magical power than Cedric who had more magical power than Frank and we see a decrease in the affects to each body from Dumbledore flying over the wall to Frank's simply crumpling on the ground; similarly, Voldemort was in a non-human form when he killed Frank, who just crumpled, while Wormtail AKed Cedric who fell over backward, while Snape AKed Dd who flew back over a wall). I don't think it's a matter of digging under the barrel for explanations, to me these are all things we've been shown already in the past 6 books. At the very least, the last idea I put forth has a better track record for establishing a pattern than does eyes or whooshing as we see three examples that don't contradict each other.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 10:51 am (#729 of 1629)
There are just too many variables. The fox was on an embankment - slanted ground - so it could have rolled due to gravity. The spider is top heavy, it was likely to roll over on it's back with legs in the air due to that. With gunshots, people fall differently when hit due to various circumstances. All AK's are not going to be the same.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 10:56 am (#730 of 1629)
That's exactly my point, Choices (you phrased it much better than I). Too many variables to say there's a pattern. Because of that, we can't say Dumbledore's death didn't follow the pattern because there isn't one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 10:58 am (#731 of 1629)
SE- Frank was standing still, and had no idea what was coming, so crumpled. Cedric looked surprised so he had a split second of knowing what was coming. If I saw an AK coming my first inclination would be to shift my weight away from the person approaching. This would explain his falling backward, rather than crumpling.
DD was lifted up and over the wall he was slumped against. It is very different from anything we've seen.
The spiders reaction to Crucio was the same as a human's. The spiders reaction to the imperius curse, same as a weak minded human. Why would the AK, which seems to resemble Frank's and Cedric's reaction, be different.
While I do like the magical power idea, I don't think Cedric was pushed over because he was more magical. I think he was reacting to the approaching wizard and AK, and had shifted his weight back.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 11:01 am (#732 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, I do get your point, and it is well taken. Just that my personal opinion differs from yours. The complexities and differences to the spell, as SE states, is just different depending on so many variables. About the only thing that is consistent with each spell that we know if is the green light flash. That seems pretty reliable. For my take, Dumbledore's eyes were closed because he closed them. The rest is a result of the freeze of the physical look of the victim at the time of the impact of the curse.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 11:05 am (#733 of 1629)
I tend to see Dumbledore's closed eyes as his acceptance of what he knew was coming. The other AK's were surprises, unexpected, and the victim's in some cases were fearful. Dumbledore's mind was organized and he was ready for what was coming - he closed his eyes and accepted his death because he was unafraid - ready for his next great adventure.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 11:07 am (#734 of 1629)
So, Cedric could've taken a step back that we didn't see and thus fell backward? Then, couldn't Dumbledore have suddenly stood up straight and tall and thus was blasted over the wall? Or, if Cedric could've tensed just before and that's why he fell the way he did, why couldn't Dumbledore have relaxed just before and thus was shoved back with more force? As I said, too many variables.
There still doesn't seem to be a pattern.
Choices, very well put. If he saw it coming and decided not to fight against it, his body would've been relaxed and his eyes closed. A relaxed body is far easier to push farther than one that has tensed all of a sudden, thus the force of the spell could've propelled him back further.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 11:14 am (#735 of 1629)
SE, that is what I was saying in # 723. He just closed his eyes, and was at peace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 11:15 am (#736 of 1629)
I don't know the degree to which JKR really thinks it through. But based on how she had positioned DD, slumped down against a tower wall, any force pushing directly at him would only push him further against the wall. So an AK could push ever so hard and it still wouldn't lift DD up, if all it was doing was exerting force along with the death.
I mean, this is just basic physics, you know?
The force that hit DD (whether from an AK or an additional nonverbal spell), lifted him up, as well as pushing him out. In other words, he was propelled in two differing directions, up and back.
Like I say, JKR may not consider what she's suggesting when she describes these things, but there would have to be two different directions of force going on in order to both lift DD up well past the height of the wall, as well as push him backward at least several feet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 11:17 am (#737 of 1629)
We need CSI flown over from Vegas. Grissom could figure it out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 11:22 am (#738 of 1629)
SE-I'm not even sure he would have had time to take a step, more of a shift in weight in anticipation of movement. A movement I doubt he had time to make. Cedric would have crumpled if he was standing straight, but the shift in weight meant he 'crumpled' but rather than falling straight down his shift in weight meant he fell backward. No step, just his body was leaning in anticipation, so when the AK hit, he fell, as did Frank, but he fell backward because his body was leaning that way.
Harry would have mentioned if DD stood up, I think. If DD relaxed, he would crumple based on what we've seen.
I still think DD would face death with his eyes open. Closed eyes is too passive. Even if he was ready for death, I think he would face it and his new adventure with his eyes wide open. I also think he would not have 'left Snape alone' by closing his eyes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 11:23 am (#739 of 1629)
LOL, Thom!
Wynnleaf, you're right, it is basic physics. Dumbledore was hit squarely in the chest. If he chest was above the wall (he was slumping against the wall, but not sitting on the ground, and he is very tall), then, because of where his center of mass is, he's still pitch over the side of the wall. If he was hit hard enough (I'm betting Snape put a lot of power behind the spell) he would've flown up and over the wall just fine without breaking the laws of physics.
If JKR isn't putting much thought into this description, then why is it "odd" to have "inconsistencies"? If she's not paying much attention to center of mass, whether he's relaxed or not, then why is it an oddity for something to happen like his eyes being closed?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 8, 2006 12:06 pm (#740 of 1629)
So here's a question,(page 590 hard) Why does DD say, "Well...yes and no..." in response to Malfoy saying,"We decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower and get you to hurry up here, to see who'd been killed, and it worked."
I know that question may be be off topic a bit, but I'm reading through and wanted to voice the question before I forgot it. Thoughts anyone? Take your time, I don't mean to interrupt.
Grissom, you gotta love that guy. I'm picturing how he would approach the crime scene!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 12:18 pm (#741 of 1629)
Annie - Excellent question and not off topic. I think it means DD is there for hos own plan, not as part of Malfoy's plan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 8, 2006 12:31 pm (#742 of 1629)
Wow, lots of posts!
That was an excellent post, S.E. Jones, showing all the differences in the AKs we have seen. I agree, the only absolute pattern is that it kills (unless you happen to be Harry Potter).
So here's a question,(page 590 hard) Why does DD say, "Well...yes and no..." in response to Malfoy saying,"We decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower and get you to hurry up here, to see who'd been killed, and it worked."-- Annie Infante
Trying to distract us, are you?
Hmm. Could Dumbledore have meant that he didn't hurry to the top of the Tower to see who'd been killed, but for some other reason? Doesn't really make sense. Why take Harry if he suspected a trap? Any other ideas?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 8, 2006 12:35 pm (#743 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 8, 2006 12:37 pm
So you're thinking that since DD did hurry up to the tower that explains the "yes" but because no one actually died that explains the "no". Maybe I was just obtuse to think there was something else to that reply. Much like I still think there is something to DD's "correspondingly huger" remark.
Posts cross again! The above comment was in response to T.
Distract...me....never......"What in the world could that be?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 8, 2006 12:41 pm (#744 of 1629)
Not that this proves anything, but in the movies both Cedric and Barty Crouch were shown dead with their eyes opened.
I don't like the idea that Snape used so much power behind his AK that it lifted Dumbledore up and over the wall. It makes it sound like Snape is a true DE and that the Hatred etched on his face was for Dumbledore. Just my opinion, but I really do want Snape to be as trustworthy as Dumbledore has argued.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [
HR]T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 12:43 pm (#745 of 1629)
Annie- I actually meant, 'yes, I'm here, but no, I'm not here because of your little plan, I'm here because I've got my own agenda...'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 8, 2006 12:50 pm (#746 of 1629)
Which, of course, then brings up that vexing question, T Vrana, of was he planning on dying or planning on faking his death? Actually I guess it is rather obvious that I think he is dead and that for me the real question is on whose terms did he die?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 1:23 pm (#747 of 1629)
That was an excellent post, S.E. Jones, showing all the differences in the AKs we have seen. I agree, the only absolute pattern is that it kills (unless you happen to be Harry Potter).
With all due respect to M Brisbee, SE and all their excellent posts, I don't think we have seen differences except in DD's case. We may not have seen that they were all the same, but we haven't seen differences.
1)Eyes- Cedric, Riddles, eyes open, we don't know about Frank, Fox or spider
2)Body- Body falls where it is, Cedric, Frank, Spider, Fox (in the case of the fox, it was leaping and fell back to earth, in the case of Cedric his look of surprise tells us he knew what was coming, and it can be surmised that he would have shifted his weight back in the split second he had, so that when the AK hit him, he fell where he stood, but his weight was moving backward before he was hit, so he didn't fall forward, or crumple straight down on the spot). Harry and Cedric were standing next to each other and Harry heard Cedric fall next to him. We are not told he moved back at all. So while we didn't see that he fell down on the spot (though it is inferred) we certainly didn't see him moved from the spot either. With the Riddles we don't know.
To get a better idea of Cedric's explanation above, stand up and have a friend raise their hand to strike you, at the moment you shift back to avoid the strike and defend yourself, assume your life leaves your body. You would fall backward. You were not propelled by anything except your shifting weight and gravity.
DD, on the other hand, has his eyes closed and is propelled up and over a wall down which he was sliding.
Objects which are not alive, do act differently with an AK, but if DD was still alive, this is odd.
Now, if he did consume DoLD (Draught of Living Death) and succumbed before hit, perhaps that could explain the eyes and the body's reaction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 2:16 pm (#748 of 1629)
With all due respect to M Brisbee, SE and all their excellent posts, I don't think we have seen differences except in DD's case. We may not have seen that they were all the same, but we haven't seen differences.
This is correct. I tried to point this out also. When JKR doesn't tell us what happened with a character's eyes, it doesn't mean that their eyes were different from Cedric's or Frank's eyes -- it means we don't know. A difference is when she actually tells us that DD's eyes were closed, when the only other eyes she told us about in an AK were opened.
DD's are the only real differences mentioned.
And these are not inconsistencies if JKR intends the differences to be indicative of a truly different occurance -- not a straightforward AK and straightforward drop from the tower.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Nov 8, 2006 3:41 pm (#749 of 1629)
T Vrana: Being picky here, but a fall from 90 feet would be more likely to cause a spatter of blood. That is blood forced form the body on impact would spatter. A trickle, which is what was described, requires, I think, a heartbeat. (I already admitted to being picky).
Just jumping in with a technical point here. A heartbeat actually is not necessary for producing "a trickle of blood". Blunt trauma, such as landing on the ground after falling a distance, generally causes internal injuries. (In emergency medicine, it's part of the concept of the "mechanism of injury".) The sheer force of landing CAN and DOES literally push blood from internal injuries out open orifices. As wynnleaf says, "This is basic physics, you know?"
Spattering would more likely be a result of (1) arterial bleeding - and you would need a heartbeat for this; (2) a large open wound (opened prior to impact), from which the blood is pushed on impact. But the FIRST rule in emergency medicine is that patients don't read the textbooks!
This is relevant because as wynnleaf said in post 686, :"Oddities" are things which deviate from the usual way JKR has had things occur in the past in her world, OR things that deviate from what would normally happen in the real world. (bold mine.) I have previously been told on this thread that what happens in the "real world" doesn't necessarily apply to the Potterverse when I have pointed out similar medically-based information.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Nov 8, 2006 5:40 pm (#750 of 1629)
It is bad enough that Dumbledore died. I would not have wanted to read a medically accurate description of a body after a 90 foot fall.
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 10:00 am (#726 of 1629)
T Vrana,
In my opinion there is a difference between several descriptions which are mostly the same, but one or more aspects of what is described in some instances is not mentioned at all in others; versus descriptions which are actively different and parts of the description in one event are the opposite of what is described in the other events.
For instance, eyes open versus eyes closed is an inconsistency. Eyes open versus no mention of eyes would not be an inconsistent description, because the reader could imagine that the eyes were still opened, the writer had simply not mentioned it.
Similarly, a rushing noise heard in two AK's, but not mentioned in later ones doesn't mean the noise was not there, but only that it was not noted in the narration. If however, the narration had said in the later instances that there was no noise, then we might take note and wonder why.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 10:04 am (#727 of 1629)
I agree with your point, and since I can't find a pattern, will have to let the lack of a 'rushing noise' go.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 10:40 am (#728 of 1629)
I don't think we have enough of anything with regard to the AK (aside from the fact it takes a life and has a great deal of power behind it) to dictate a pattern. We hear about the eyes in three cases (Riddles, Cedric, and Dumbledore) but don't see two of them actually get cast (the Riddles and Cedric - we just hear the incantation and the body hitting the ground) and the one we do see differs (Dumbledore's eyes are closed not open). We only see the bodily results of three cases (Frank, Cedric, and Dumbledore), one of which we only see after the fact not during the casting of the spell (we hear Cedric's body hit the ground and then see him on his back spread-eagle) and the two we do see differ (Frank just crumples and Dumbledore flies back over the wall).
say we can't count the spider and fox because there are too many potential variables that differ between killing an insect/animal and killing a human that could skew the end result. The spider's body physically moves when hit (it rolls onto its back and its legs curl up) and the fox falls back to the earth (we don't know if it was the exact location where it jumped up from or if it was shoved back a little).
Plus, if we're dealing with magic and the spell needs a lot of magic behind it (as Moody/Crouch put it) then the amount of magic in the victim and caster may actually come into play (Dumbledore had more magical power than Cedric who had more magical power than Frank and we see a decrease in the affects to each body from Dumbledore flying over the wall to Frank's simply crumpling on the ground; similarly, Voldemort was in a non-human form when he killed Frank, who just crumpled, while Wormtail AKed Cedric who fell over backward, while Snape AKed Dd who flew back over a wall). I don't think it's a matter of digging under the barrel for explanations, to me these are all things we've been shown already in the past 6 books. At the very least, the last idea I put forth has a better track record for establishing a pattern than does eyes or whooshing as we see three examples that don't contradict each other.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 10:51 am (#729 of 1629)
There are just too many variables. The fox was on an embankment - slanted ground - so it could have rolled due to gravity. The spider is top heavy, it was likely to roll over on it's back with legs in the air due to that. With gunshots, people fall differently when hit due to various circumstances. All AK's are not going to be the same.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 10:56 am (#730 of 1629)
That's exactly my point, Choices (you phrased it much better than I). Too many variables to say there's a pattern. Because of that, we can't say Dumbledore's death didn't follow the pattern because there isn't one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 10:58 am (#731 of 1629)
SE- Frank was standing still, and had no idea what was coming, so crumpled. Cedric looked surprised so he had a split second of knowing what was coming. If I saw an AK coming my first inclination would be to shift my weight away from the person approaching. This would explain his falling backward, rather than crumpling.
DD was lifted up and over the wall he was slumped against. It is very different from anything we've seen.
The spiders reaction to Crucio was the same as a human's. The spiders reaction to the imperius curse, same as a weak minded human. Why would the AK, which seems to resemble Frank's and Cedric's reaction, be different.
While I do like the magical power idea, I don't think Cedric was pushed over because he was more magical. I think he was reacting to the approaching wizard and AK, and had shifted his weight back.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 11:01 am (#732 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, I do get your point, and it is well taken. Just that my personal opinion differs from yours. The complexities and differences to the spell, as SE states, is just different depending on so many variables. About the only thing that is consistent with each spell that we know if is the green light flash. That seems pretty reliable. For my take, Dumbledore's eyes were closed because he closed them. The rest is a result of the freeze of the physical look of the victim at the time of the impact of the curse.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 11:05 am (#733 of 1629)
I tend to see Dumbledore's closed eyes as his acceptance of what he knew was coming. The other AK's were surprises, unexpected, and the victim's in some cases were fearful. Dumbledore's mind was organized and he was ready for what was coming - he closed his eyes and accepted his death because he was unafraid - ready for his next great adventure.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 11:07 am (#734 of 1629)
So, Cedric could've taken a step back that we didn't see and thus fell backward? Then, couldn't Dumbledore have suddenly stood up straight and tall and thus was blasted over the wall? Or, if Cedric could've tensed just before and that's why he fell the way he did, why couldn't Dumbledore have relaxed just before and thus was shoved back with more force? As I said, too many variables.
There still doesn't seem to be a pattern.
Choices, very well put. If he saw it coming and decided not to fight against it, his body would've been relaxed and his eyes closed. A relaxed body is far easier to push farther than one that has tensed all of a sudden, thus the force of the spell could've propelled him back further.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 11:14 am (#735 of 1629)
SE, that is what I was saying in # 723. He just closed his eyes, and was at peace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 11:15 am (#736 of 1629)
I don't know the degree to which JKR really thinks it through. But based on how she had positioned DD, slumped down against a tower wall, any force pushing directly at him would only push him further against the wall. So an AK could push ever so hard and it still wouldn't lift DD up, if all it was doing was exerting force along with the death.
I mean, this is just basic physics, you know?
The force that hit DD (whether from an AK or an additional nonverbal spell), lifted him up, as well as pushing him out. In other words, he was propelled in two differing directions, up and back.
Like I say, JKR may not consider what she's suggesting when she describes these things, but there would have to be two different directions of force going on in order to both lift DD up well past the height of the wall, as well as push him backward at least several feet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 11:17 am (#737 of 1629)
We need CSI flown over from Vegas. Grissom could figure it out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 11:22 am (#738 of 1629)
SE-I'm not even sure he would have had time to take a step, more of a shift in weight in anticipation of movement. A movement I doubt he had time to make. Cedric would have crumpled if he was standing straight, but the shift in weight meant he 'crumpled' but rather than falling straight down his shift in weight meant he fell backward. No step, just his body was leaning in anticipation, so when the AK hit, he fell, as did Frank, but he fell backward because his body was leaning that way.
Harry would have mentioned if DD stood up, I think. If DD relaxed, he would crumple based on what we've seen.
I still think DD would face death with his eyes open. Closed eyes is too passive. Even if he was ready for death, I think he would face it and his new adventure with his eyes wide open. I also think he would not have 'left Snape alone' by closing his eyes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 11:23 am (#739 of 1629)
LOL, Thom!
Wynnleaf, you're right, it is basic physics. Dumbledore was hit squarely in the chest. If he chest was above the wall (he was slumping against the wall, but not sitting on the ground, and he is very tall), then, because of where his center of mass is, he's still pitch over the side of the wall. If he was hit hard enough (I'm betting Snape put a lot of power behind the spell) he would've flown up and over the wall just fine without breaking the laws of physics.
If JKR isn't putting much thought into this description, then why is it "odd" to have "inconsistencies"? If she's not paying much attention to center of mass, whether he's relaxed or not, then why is it an oddity for something to happen like his eyes being closed?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 8, 2006 12:06 pm (#740 of 1629)
So here's a question,(page 590 hard) Why does DD say, "Well...yes and no..." in response to Malfoy saying,"We decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower and get you to hurry up here, to see who'd been killed, and it worked."
I know that question may be be off topic a bit, but I'm reading through and wanted to voice the question before I forgot it. Thoughts anyone? Take your time, I don't mean to interrupt.
Grissom, you gotta love that guy. I'm picturing how he would approach the crime scene!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 12:18 pm (#741 of 1629)
Annie - Excellent question and not off topic. I think it means DD is there for hos own plan, not as part of Malfoy's plan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 8, 2006 12:31 pm (#742 of 1629)
Wow, lots of posts!
That was an excellent post, S.E. Jones, showing all the differences in the AKs we have seen. I agree, the only absolute pattern is that it kills (unless you happen to be Harry Potter).
So here's a question,(page 590 hard) Why does DD say, "Well...yes and no..." in response to Malfoy saying,"We decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower and get you to hurry up here, to see who'd been killed, and it worked."-- Annie Infante
Trying to distract us, are you?
Hmm. Could Dumbledore have meant that he didn't hurry to the top of the Tower to see who'd been killed, but for some other reason? Doesn't really make sense. Why take Harry if he suspected a trap? Any other ideas?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 8, 2006 12:35 pm (#743 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 8, 2006 12:37 pm
So you're thinking that since DD did hurry up to the tower that explains the "yes" but because no one actually died that explains the "no". Maybe I was just obtuse to think there was something else to that reply. Much like I still think there is something to DD's "correspondingly huger" remark.
Posts cross again! The above comment was in response to T.
Distract...me....never......"What in the world could that be?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 8, 2006 12:41 pm (#744 of 1629)
Not that this proves anything, but in the movies both Cedric and Barty Crouch were shown dead with their eyes opened.
I don't like the idea that Snape used so much power behind his AK that it lifted Dumbledore up and over the wall. It makes it sound like Snape is a true DE and that the Hatred etched on his face was for Dumbledore. Just my opinion, but I really do want Snape to be as trustworthy as Dumbledore has argued.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [
HR]T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 12:43 pm (#745 of 1629)
Annie- I actually meant, 'yes, I'm here, but no, I'm not here because of your little plan, I'm here because I've got my own agenda...'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 8, 2006 12:50 pm (#746 of 1629)
Which, of course, then brings up that vexing question, T Vrana, of was he planning on dying or planning on faking his death? Actually I guess it is rather obvious that I think he is dead and that for me the real question is on whose terms did he die?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 1:23 pm (#747 of 1629)
That was an excellent post, S.E. Jones, showing all the differences in the AKs we have seen. I agree, the only absolute pattern is that it kills (unless you happen to be Harry Potter).
With all due respect to M Brisbee, SE and all their excellent posts, I don't think we have seen differences except in DD's case. We may not have seen that they were all the same, but we haven't seen differences.
1)Eyes- Cedric, Riddles, eyes open, we don't know about Frank, Fox or spider
2)Body- Body falls where it is, Cedric, Frank, Spider, Fox (in the case of the fox, it was leaping and fell back to earth, in the case of Cedric his look of surprise tells us he knew what was coming, and it can be surmised that he would have shifted his weight back in the split second he had, so that when the AK hit him, he fell where he stood, but his weight was moving backward before he was hit, so he didn't fall forward, or crumple straight down on the spot). Harry and Cedric were standing next to each other and Harry heard Cedric fall next to him. We are not told he moved back at all. So while we didn't see that he fell down on the spot (though it is inferred) we certainly didn't see him moved from the spot either. With the Riddles we don't know.
To get a better idea of Cedric's explanation above, stand up and have a friend raise their hand to strike you, at the moment you shift back to avoid the strike and defend yourself, assume your life leaves your body. You would fall backward. You were not propelled by anything except your shifting weight and gravity.
DD, on the other hand, has his eyes closed and is propelled up and over a wall down which he was sliding.
Objects which are not alive, do act differently with an AK, but if DD was still alive, this is odd.
Now, if he did consume DoLD (Draught of Living Death) and succumbed before hit, perhaps that could explain the eyes and the body's reaction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 2:16 pm (#748 of 1629)
With all due respect to M Brisbee, SE and all their excellent posts, I don't think we have seen differences except in DD's case. We may not have seen that they were all the same, but we haven't seen differences.
This is correct. I tried to point this out also. When JKR doesn't tell us what happened with a character's eyes, it doesn't mean that their eyes were different from Cedric's or Frank's eyes -- it means we don't know. A difference is when she actually tells us that DD's eyes were closed, when the only other eyes she told us about in an AK were opened.
DD's are the only real differences mentioned.
And these are not inconsistencies if JKR intends the differences to be indicative of a truly different occurance -- not a straightforward AK and straightforward drop from the tower.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Nov 8, 2006 3:41 pm (#749 of 1629)
T Vrana: Being picky here, but a fall from 90 feet would be more likely to cause a spatter of blood. That is blood forced form the body on impact would spatter. A trickle, which is what was described, requires, I think, a heartbeat. (I already admitted to being picky).
Just jumping in with a technical point here. A heartbeat actually is not necessary for producing "a trickle of blood". Blunt trauma, such as landing on the ground after falling a distance, generally causes internal injuries. (In emergency medicine, it's part of the concept of the "mechanism of injury".) The sheer force of landing CAN and DOES literally push blood from internal injuries out open orifices. As wynnleaf says, "This is basic physics, you know?"
Spattering would more likely be a result of (1) arterial bleeding - and you would need a heartbeat for this; (2) a large open wound (opened prior to impact), from which the blood is pushed on impact. But the FIRST rule in emergency medicine is that patients don't read the textbooks!
This is relevant because as wynnleaf said in post 686, :"Oddities" are things which deviate from the usual way JKR has had things occur in the past in her world, OR things that deviate from what would normally happen in the real world. (bold mine.) I have previously been told on this thread that what happens in the "real world" doesn't necessarily apply to the Potterverse when I have pointed out similar medically-based information.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Nov 8, 2006 5:40 pm (#750 of 1629)
It is bad enough that Dumbledore died. I would not have wanted to read a medically accurate description of a body after a 90 foot fall.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 751 to 775
Lady Arabella Wed May 18, 2011 9:20 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 5:56 pm (#751 of 1629)
Mediwitch-
I watch a couple of episodes of Forensic Files, and I think I'm an expert.
Looking back I meant to say splatter. I was trying to convey that the force of the landing would splatter more blood (as you say from various orifices), rather than DD seeming to be asleep with no real visible wounds, but a trickle of blood at the mouth. Someone had said perhaps he bit his lip, blood from such a wound would require a heartbeat, wouldn't it?
Anyway, I'm not an expert, but you seem to have real knowledge on the subject and I would like to hear, if you would like too share, what you think of the state of DD's body if he fell 90+ feet, post real AK.
SS- I agree to a point. While we don't need Jo to give us graphic details, staying within the realm of possible should be a priority. Or Jo shouldn't have tossed him from the tallest tower if the results would be too graphic. At least let the guy lose his glasses!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 5:59 pm (#752 of 1629)
T Vrana - "...in the case of Cedric his look of surprise tells us he knew what was coming..."
If he knew what was coming, why did he look surprised? When I've had a look of surprise on my face it is because I did not know what was coming....hence the surprise. I think Cedric was caught totally unaware - it all happened so fast. First the portkey, then the strange graveyard, then Wormtail appears, then ZAP - it's over. The surprised look was because he only had a moment to realize what was coming at him.....death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:04 pm (#753 of 1629)
Choices- I agree 100% with your last line. That was my point. In that same moment of realization would have come the instinctual shift of body weight away from...death.
EDIT- Thus, when the AK hit, Cedric's weight was already shifted back, and he would have fallen backward, not straight down like Frank. When I say he realized what was coming, I mean at the last moment. He heard the AK and his brain would have been processing this, "what the...", but it knew what an AK was, so in that moment of surprise he would move, instinctively, before real thought, away from danger. Frank Bryce had no clue so he didn't even get that millisecond to react with surprise or an attempt at moving away from death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 6:14 pm (#754 of 1629)
LOL!! My post did get a bit contradictory, didn't it. What I actually meant is that he did not know what was coming and when it hit him, he was surprised. He had only an instant of realization and then he was dead.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Nov 8, 2006 6:15 pm (#755 of 1629)
Soul Search, I agree with you - a medically detailed description of Dumbledore's body should not be necessary in this genre.
T Vrana, I think splatter/spatter is a fine distinction and the explanation above would still apply. In white, in case people would like to skip the difference: splatter would imply more, which would be more likely from an existing, open wound rather than from internal bleeding.
I'll also give the answer to your last question in white, in case anyone wants to skip it. But some of it really depends on the landing surface. Grassy, loamy soil is really a lot more forgiving than concrete. Regardless, deceleration trauma is definitely NOT pretty: The body would be like a bag of gelatin. Lots of broken bones, serious internal damage...basically mush on the inside, while the body may appear relatively intact on the outside, unless there was contact with something during the fall (i.e., falling through tree branches) to cause more external damage. But remember what I said, patients don't read medical texts. Bizarre things really DO happen - all the time. I've seen people completely smash up cars into unrecognizable piles of metal and walk away, while others get into a fender-bender and are paralyzed for life because of one vertebrae cracking. So medically speaking, I don't have a problem with the presentation of Dumbledore's body.
By the way, I am a Firefighter/EMT (for 9 years), as is my husband and my brother, and my father was also. That's where I've learned this stuff. People traveling at high rates of speed and rural, country roads are not a good combination.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:21 pm (#756 of 1629)
Choices- see above edit to my last post. I also think once the AK hits I’ts too late for any reaction, but just before...
Mediwitch- Thanks for the detail. (I think)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 6:24 pm (#757 of 1629)
LOL I think we're basically saying the same thing. :-) Let's agree to agree. LOL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:27 pm (#758 of 1629)
Agreed!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 6:29 pm (#759 of 1629)
Mediwitch,
One of the problems with the whole DD death scene is that JKR is not reporting something she witnessed. If this was a witness's evidence, we could use all sorts of theories about "maybe this unlikely event was caused by this or that," and it would make sense to look at every possible alternative. Forensics experts or detectives don't sift through crime scenes saying to themselves, "this couldn't possibly happen because the only other two murder descriptions we have in our files didn't do this."
But JKR is not reporting. This isn't a witnesses report or evidence. JKR created the entire scene. Every bit of the description was created. She may have paid more or less attention to the various words she used, or what the descriptions implied, but it's a created description, not a report of an actual event. So we get to ask ourselves not "why did this happen?" but "why did JKR write it that way?"
When JKR writes several aspects of the description of the death which are different from the ways she has described similar murders, we have to ask ourselves why she wrote it differently. She didn't write DD's glasses still on his face because she happened to be at the crime scene and noticed he had a magical charm to keep them on. She didn't write his eyes closed because she was up on a tower and watched this guy AK DD and happened to see DD close his eyes at the last second.
No.
JKR decided to describe DD's body on the ground and made the conscious decision to put his glasses on his face. JKR arranged the body -- not the fall. She put the glasses on his face. At the same time, she put the locket out of his pocket on the ground. It didn't fall out, and she happened to notice it lying there. She put it there.
JKR thought about DD's face and decided to have his eyes closed. She almost certainly remembered that at least Cedric's eyes had been open. But she decided DD's eyes would be closed. Even though she loved describing DD's eyes, she decided they would be closed in this death scene.
JKR decided to put make his body fly up into the air, appear to be suspended for a moment (no rolling over the edge of the wall), and then drop. She decided. It didn't just happen. She's bound to know that it was different from every other AK that she'd described. She decided to make this one different and she decided to refrain from telling us why DD went up in the air and over the wall.
Why did JKR make these decisions which are different from her other decisions in describing AK's, or her decision about the glasses which is different from her decision about the locket.
Get it? JKR did not decide to make his locket fly out and his glasses stay on because she watched it happen and that's just the way the physics fell out. No. JKR decided to do it. Why?
In my opinion, she made these things occur as small indicators that the death scene was not quite right -- that the death was not as straightforward as it appeared on the surface.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:33 pm (#760 of 1629)
wynnleaf- I agree.
But I must inform you that you've used up your allotment of “decided's” for the day...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 6:34 pm (#761 of 1629)
But I must inform you that you've used up your allotment of “decided's” for the day...
Argh.... I'm a terrible writer.... takes me so long to say anything. And my vocab is big, but my personal lexicon- soooo limited.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 6:44 pm (#762 of 1629)
Oh no way are they too looonnnngggggg. They are just expressive. Very tough on us drivers.(snort)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:46 pm (#763 of 1629)
wynnleaf- It wasn't a criticism! It was clearly passionately written and the “decided's” (perfect word for what Jo did), mounted up a bit (and actually that is a fine technique for driving home your point). I enjoy your posts and do not think them terribly written, at all.
Just having a little fun. I'm certainly not qualified to seriously criticize anyone's post, and am thankful you all endure mine...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 7:02 pm (#764 of 1629)
Me too, Wynnleaf. I hope you understand my humor. You wouldn't be you any other way, and I for one like your style, over and over and over again.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 7:44 pm (#765 of 1629)
Thom and T Vrana,
That's okay. I knew you guys were kidding me.
It's just that I know I can write such convoluted posts sometimes, and I think is anybody going to even understand this, much less read it all??
Anyhow, I always envy the concise posters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 8:20 pm (#766 of 1629)
I find it quite an "oddity" that so many still find the actual manner of death 'odd". After OP, I was expecting some big complex plot where Dumbledore faked his death and Snape had to run off being suspected of killing him, etc, but find the death to be rather straight forward after all my suspicions. Of course, I'm sure everyone who sees the "oddities" finds it odd that some still don't see them as such. We may just have to agree to disagree and focus on some other part of the puzzle for now.
Mediwitch, that is exactly what I was trying to say about the internal injuries causing the blood. You put it far better than I could.
Annie Infante --Actually I guess it is rather obvious that I think he is dead and that for me the real question is on whose terms did he die?—
Exactly!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 9, 2006 7:49 am (#767 of 1629)
(Thank you, Mediwitch, for your expert take on blood spillage. That's what I thought, but I'm no expert.)
Okay, agreeing to disagree (for the moment **snicker**), and moving right along, on whose terms did Dumbledore die?
We know that Dumbledore knew Draco was trying to kill him, because Dumbledore says he knew.
Why did Dumbledore continue to let murder attempts to take place, seeing as how those attempts were also placing students in mortal danger?
Theory 1: Dumbledore didn't have enough hard proof to stop Draco. Dumbledore doesn't act without proof. Case in point, Tom Riddle at school, who Dumbledore suspected but couldn't link to murder, so couldn't do anything about except watch more closely.
Theory 2: The Unbreakable Vow could ruin all Dumbledore's plans and efforts, so sorting that out takes precedence over even the safety of his charges. I'm uncomfortable with this, because my feelings are that if Dumbledore can't put his duty as Headmaster first, he shouldn't be Headmaster. I do wonder though if children who are reading these books would agree with me though.
Any other ideas?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 10:03 am (#768 of 1629)
The foolish attempts did stop after Christmas (Ron was poisoned post-Christmas, but by a bottle delivered before Christmas). Possible explanations:
1) My theory, Draco had a one on one with LV over Christmas and was told to stop fooling around and get the original task he was assigned (get something in or out of Hogwarts), and when that was done, then he could now add killing DD to his 'to do' list, since he felt the original task wasn't enough. This would imply that DD knew, and knew the students were safe until the night Draco celebrated and DD asked the Order to patrol inside.
2) Snape was watching Malfoy, that's what he and DD fought about.
3) DD had to wait to give himself time to finish with Harry. The whole of the WW is at stake, so chances must be taken.
Just a few thoughts..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 9, 2006 11:04 am (#769 of 1629)
1) My theory, Draco had a one on one with LV over Christmas and was told to stop fooling around and get the original task he was assigned (get something in or out of Hogwarts), and when that was done, then he could now add killing DD to his 'to do' list, since he felt the original task wasn't enough. This would imply that DD knew, and knew the students were safe until the night Draco celebrated and DD asked the Order to patrol inside. --T Vrana
I think that Draco had been ordered to kill Dumbledore from the start, but the rest of what you say still makes sense. The two murder attempts did happen before Christmas, and nothing after until the cabinet was fixed. I think there is good evidence that Voldemort had an ulterior motive, whatever he told Draco the task actually was. If Dumbledore suspected that Voldemort really had another secret plan, that might go better towards explaining his actions as Headmaster, because Voldemort would continue to target Hogwarts even with Draco or Dumbledore gone.
2) Snape was watching Malfoy, that's what he and DD fought about.
Snape was watching Draco for Dumbledore and Narcissa, and he had the Unbreakable Vow to uphold. Where does that leave Snape's allegiance? Is it possible report to Dumbledore about Draco without violating the Vow?
3) DD had to wait to give himself time to finish with Harry. The whole of the WW is at stake, so chances must be taken.
I don't know. Dumbledore didn't really impart information in a speedy fashion-- it took a whole year and just a handful-and-a-half of private lessons. I agree that the whole Wizarding World is at stake, but is a schoolground with children the best place for the battlefield? Can Dumbledore do his job as head of the Wizengamot and Leader of the Order and not be Headmaster? Does Dumbledore believe that Hogwarts will be the battlefield regardless of where he is personally and regardless of what Draco gets up to?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 9, 2006 12:41 pm (#770 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 9, 2006 12:42 pm
In a quick response to Mrs. Brisbee, if DD wouldn't act to stop Draco without proof doesn't that rather point to the possibility that Snape didn't tell DD what Draco was up to? Certainly if Snape had told DD he would have done something more of a preventative nature to protect Draco from LV. Then we wouldn't have the scene on the tower, of course, and would have to content ourselves with analying some other portion of the book!
I also enjoyed Wynnleaf's "decidingly" animated post! I think that while JK may make the occasional unintentional flub, she by and large knows exactly how she is writing something and for what effect.
Now I must go stack wood. Yippee.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 2:40 pm (#771 of 1629)
M brisbee I don't know. Dumbledore didn't really impart information in a speedy fashion
Well, that was partly Harry's fault. It took him a while to get Slughorn's memory.
I think too, that DD needed to wait for Malfoy to realize he couldn't kill. If DD had confronted Malfoy he would have denied it. But the knowledge that DD knew would be available to LV through Draco, and Draco would have been in danger. I tend to think DD knew more than he let on, and that's why he was confident he could wait until Malfoy was ready to attempt to kill DD in earnest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 9, 2006 4:03 pm (#772 of 1629)
Yes, It would be more valuable for Draco to find out for himself that he is no killer. If he had been prevented from killing (or trying to kill) that would leave the door open to say, "yes, I am a killer, I just didn't get the chance."
I had forgotten that DD tells Draco he knew about his trying to kill him, so I guess Snape had to have told him. Hmmm, too many masculine pronouns....I have wood for brains right now!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 9, 2006 5:42 pm (#773 of 1629)
Mrs. Brisbee --...because my feelings are that if Dumbledore can't put his duty as Headmaster first, he shouldn't be Headmaster.—
We know about the bottle that was sent before Christmas, but Dumbledore didn't, at the time, right? I can't really recall, were there any more Hogsmeade visits, aside from Apparation lessons, that took place after Christmas? The one that was supposed to be on Ron's birthday was cancelled and that's early March. Maybe Dumbledore thought he could keep the students safe by simply cancelling Hogsmeade visits, since that's why Katie was able to come in contact with the necklace? If so, that would mean he was doing his duty as Headmaster as well as trying to handle the Vow, Draco and his mission, and Harry's lessons.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Nov 9, 2006 7:52 pm (#774 of 1629)
Hi wynnleaf! I don't really want to open up a big debate, but I just wanted to give a quick reply to your last post. I was simply focusing on the comments made that a body couldn't fall from a tower and "just" have a trickle of blood and unusually bent arms/legs. I wasn't attempting to deal with the glasses, the locket, or the events on the tower before the fall.
And I do find it a bit confusing that in your post #686, you said that oddities "are things which deviate from the usual way JKR has had things occur in the past in her world, OR things that deviate from what would normally happen in the real world.", but when I provide evidence of things that normally happen in the real world I am told that Jo is not reporting, she is creating (bold emphasis mine). I was just attempting to point out that something people have considered an "oddity" is not really odd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 8:24 pm (#775 of 1629)
Mediwitch- I won't claim to answer for Wynnleaf, but as one who has also pointed out that Jo is creating, not reporting, it isn't that Jo can create any situation. It isn't that her creating is allowed to defy reality. The point I (and I think Wynnleaf) was trying to make with the 'creating not reporting' comment, is that Jo is choosing the words she uses and creating the situation, not reporting (reacting) to something she witnessed. Therefore when she chooses to create certain situations, we have to take notice.
Point in case. We are told that DD is gravely injured and his hand appears dead. But, at the Dursleys’, Harry sees DD draw his wand so quickly that he barely sees it.
In this case, Jo has chosen to have DD use his injured hand so quickly that Harry barely sees it. She decided this, which is odd, because he's supposed to be badly injured in his wand hand. This is seen by some as a clue that something is amiss. Jo could have said he drew his wand, he drew his wand quickly etc., but she chose 'so quickly Harry barely saw it.' She isn't a reporter who saw this happen, she is a writer who chose this description for a reason. So the obvious question is "why would an author who has just told us DD is getting old, slow, is gravely injured, choose to have DD draw his wand so quickly with his injured hand, that it is barely seen'?
The difference is not that Jo can make anything happen, because she's creating, but when she chooses very specific words to describe an event it is a choice and we have to ask why she made that choice. (This also appplies to her decision to tell us at the cave that DD moved like a much younger wizard. Why would she add that, unless it meant something?)
Hope that makes sense.
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 5:56 pm (#751 of 1629)
Mediwitch-
I watch a couple of episodes of Forensic Files, and I think I'm an expert.
Looking back I meant to say splatter. I was trying to convey that the force of the landing would splatter more blood (as you say from various orifices), rather than DD seeming to be asleep with no real visible wounds, but a trickle of blood at the mouth. Someone had said perhaps he bit his lip, blood from such a wound would require a heartbeat, wouldn't it?
Anyway, I'm not an expert, but you seem to have real knowledge on the subject and I would like to hear, if you would like too share, what you think of the state of DD's body if he fell 90+ feet, post real AK.
SS- I agree to a point. While we don't need Jo to give us graphic details, staying within the realm of possible should be a priority. Or Jo shouldn't have tossed him from the tallest tower if the results would be too graphic. At least let the guy lose his glasses!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 5:59 pm (#752 of 1629)
T Vrana - "...in the case of Cedric his look of surprise tells us he knew what was coming..."
If he knew what was coming, why did he look surprised? When I've had a look of surprise on my face it is because I did not know what was coming....hence the surprise. I think Cedric was caught totally unaware - it all happened so fast. First the portkey, then the strange graveyard, then Wormtail appears, then ZAP - it's over. The surprised look was because he only had a moment to realize what was coming at him.....death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:04 pm (#753 of 1629)
Choices- I agree 100% with your last line. That was my point. In that same moment of realization would have come the instinctual shift of body weight away from...death.
EDIT- Thus, when the AK hit, Cedric's weight was already shifted back, and he would have fallen backward, not straight down like Frank. When I say he realized what was coming, I mean at the last moment. He heard the AK and his brain would have been processing this, "what the...", but it knew what an AK was, so in that moment of surprise he would move, instinctively, before real thought, away from danger. Frank Bryce had no clue so he didn't even get that millisecond to react with surprise or an attempt at moving away from death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 6:14 pm (#754 of 1629)
LOL!! My post did get a bit contradictory, didn't it. What I actually meant is that he did not know what was coming and when it hit him, he was surprised. He had only an instant of realization and then he was dead.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Nov 8, 2006 6:15 pm (#755 of 1629)
Soul Search, I agree with you - a medically detailed description of Dumbledore's body should not be necessary in this genre.
T Vrana, I think splatter/spatter is a fine distinction and the explanation above would still apply. In white, in case people would like to skip the difference: splatter would imply more, which would be more likely from an existing, open wound rather than from internal bleeding.
I'll also give the answer to your last question in white, in case anyone wants to skip it. But some of it really depends on the landing surface. Grassy, loamy soil is really a lot more forgiving than concrete. Regardless, deceleration trauma is definitely NOT pretty: The body would be like a bag of gelatin. Lots of broken bones, serious internal damage...basically mush on the inside, while the body may appear relatively intact on the outside, unless there was contact with something during the fall (i.e., falling through tree branches) to cause more external damage. But remember what I said, patients don't read medical texts. Bizarre things really DO happen - all the time. I've seen people completely smash up cars into unrecognizable piles of metal and walk away, while others get into a fender-bender and are paralyzed for life because of one vertebrae cracking. So medically speaking, I don't have a problem with the presentation of Dumbledore's body.
By the way, I am a Firefighter/EMT (for 9 years), as is my husband and my brother, and my father was also. That's where I've learned this stuff. People traveling at high rates of speed and rural, country roads are not a good combination.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:21 pm (#756 of 1629)
Choices- see above edit to my last post. I also think once the AK hits I’ts too late for any reaction, but just before...
Mediwitch- Thanks for the detail. (I think)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 8, 2006 6:24 pm (#757 of 1629)
LOL I think we're basically saying the same thing. :-) Let's agree to agree. LOL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:27 pm (#758 of 1629)
Agreed!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 6:29 pm (#759 of 1629)
Mediwitch,
One of the problems with the whole DD death scene is that JKR is not reporting something she witnessed. If this was a witness's evidence, we could use all sorts of theories about "maybe this unlikely event was caused by this or that," and it would make sense to look at every possible alternative. Forensics experts or detectives don't sift through crime scenes saying to themselves, "this couldn't possibly happen because the only other two murder descriptions we have in our files didn't do this."
But JKR is not reporting. This isn't a witnesses report or evidence. JKR created the entire scene. Every bit of the description was created. She may have paid more or less attention to the various words she used, or what the descriptions implied, but it's a created description, not a report of an actual event. So we get to ask ourselves not "why did this happen?" but "why did JKR write it that way?"
When JKR writes several aspects of the description of the death which are different from the ways she has described similar murders, we have to ask ourselves why she wrote it differently. She didn't write DD's glasses still on his face because she happened to be at the crime scene and noticed he had a magical charm to keep them on. She didn't write his eyes closed because she was up on a tower and watched this guy AK DD and happened to see DD close his eyes at the last second.
No.
JKR decided to describe DD's body on the ground and made the conscious decision to put his glasses on his face. JKR arranged the body -- not the fall. She put the glasses on his face. At the same time, she put the locket out of his pocket on the ground. It didn't fall out, and she happened to notice it lying there. She put it there.
JKR thought about DD's face and decided to have his eyes closed. She almost certainly remembered that at least Cedric's eyes had been open. But she decided DD's eyes would be closed. Even though she loved describing DD's eyes, she decided they would be closed in this death scene.
JKR decided to put make his body fly up into the air, appear to be suspended for a moment (no rolling over the edge of the wall), and then drop. She decided. It didn't just happen. She's bound to know that it was different from every other AK that she'd described. She decided to make this one different and she decided to refrain from telling us why DD went up in the air and over the wall.
Why did JKR make these decisions which are different from her other decisions in describing AK's, or her decision about the glasses which is different from her decision about the locket.
Get it? JKR did not decide to make his locket fly out and his glasses stay on because she watched it happen and that's just the way the physics fell out. No. JKR decided to do it. Why?
In my opinion, she made these things occur as small indicators that the death scene was not quite right -- that the death was not as straightforward as it appeared on the surface.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:33 pm (#760 of 1629)
wynnleaf- I agree.
But I must inform you that you've used up your allotment of “decided's” for the day...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 6:34 pm (#761 of 1629)
But I must inform you that you've used up your allotment of “decided's” for the day...
Argh.... I'm a terrible writer.... takes me so long to say anything. And my vocab is big, but my personal lexicon- soooo limited.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 6:44 pm (#762 of 1629)
Oh no way are they too looonnnngggggg. They are just expressive. Very tough on us drivers.(snort)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 8, 2006 6:46 pm (#763 of 1629)
wynnleaf- It wasn't a criticism! It was clearly passionately written and the “decided's” (perfect word for what Jo did), mounted up a bit (and actually that is a fine technique for driving home your point). I enjoy your posts and do not think them terribly written, at all.
Just having a little fun. I'm certainly not qualified to seriously criticize anyone's post, and am thankful you all endure mine...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 8, 2006 7:02 pm (#764 of 1629)
Me too, Wynnleaf. I hope you understand my humor. You wouldn't be you any other way, and I for one like your style, over and over and over again.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 7:44 pm (#765 of 1629)
Thom and T Vrana,
That's okay. I knew you guys were kidding me.
It's just that I know I can write such convoluted posts sometimes, and I think is anybody going to even understand this, much less read it all??
Anyhow, I always envy the concise posters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 8, 2006 8:20 pm (#766 of 1629)
I find it quite an "oddity" that so many still find the actual manner of death 'odd". After OP, I was expecting some big complex plot where Dumbledore faked his death and Snape had to run off being suspected of killing him, etc, but find the death to be rather straight forward after all my suspicions. Of course, I'm sure everyone who sees the "oddities" finds it odd that some still don't see them as such. We may just have to agree to disagree and focus on some other part of the puzzle for now.
Mediwitch, that is exactly what I was trying to say about the internal injuries causing the blood. You put it far better than I could.
Annie Infante --Actually I guess it is rather obvious that I think he is dead and that for me the real question is on whose terms did he die?—
Exactly!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 9, 2006 7:49 am (#767 of 1629)
(Thank you, Mediwitch, for your expert take on blood spillage. That's what I thought, but I'm no expert.)
Okay, agreeing to disagree (for the moment **snicker**), and moving right along, on whose terms did Dumbledore die?
We know that Dumbledore knew Draco was trying to kill him, because Dumbledore says he knew.
Why did Dumbledore continue to let murder attempts to take place, seeing as how those attempts were also placing students in mortal danger?
Theory 1: Dumbledore didn't have enough hard proof to stop Draco. Dumbledore doesn't act without proof. Case in point, Tom Riddle at school, who Dumbledore suspected but couldn't link to murder, so couldn't do anything about except watch more closely.
Theory 2: The Unbreakable Vow could ruin all Dumbledore's plans and efforts, so sorting that out takes precedence over even the safety of his charges. I'm uncomfortable with this, because my feelings are that if Dumbledore can't put his duty as Headmaster first, he shouldn't be Headmaster. I do wonder though if children who are reading these books would agree with me though.
Any other ideas?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 10:03 am (#768 of 1629)
The foolish attempts did stop after Christmas (Ron was poisoned post-Christmas, but by a bottle delivered before Christmas). Possible explanations:
1) My theory, Draco had a one on one with LV over Christmas and was told to stop fooling around and get the original task he was assigned (get something in or out of Hogwarts), and when that was done, then he could now add killing DD to his 'to do' list, since he felt the original task wasn't enough. This would imply that DD knew, and knew the students were safe until the night Draco celebrated and DD asked the Order to patrol inside.
2) Snape was watching Malfoy, that's what he and DD fought about.
3) DD had to wait to give himself time to finish with Harry. The whole of the WW is at stake, so chances must be taken.
Just a few thoughts..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 9, 2006 11:04 am (#769 of 1629)
1) My theory, Draco had a one on one with LV over Christmas and was told to stop fooling around and get the original task he was assigned (get something in or out of Hogwarts), and when that was done, then he could now add killing DD to his 'to do' list, since he felt the original task wasn't enough. This would imply that DD knew, and knew the students were safe until the night Draco celebrated and DD asked the Order to patrol inside. --T Vrana
I think that Draco had been ordered to kill Dumbledore from the start, but the rest of what you say still makes sense. The two murder attempts did happen before Christmas, and nothing after until the cabinet was fixed. I think there is good evidence that Voldemort had an ulterior motive, whatever he told Draco the task actually was. If Dumbledore suspected that Voldemort really had another secret plan, that might go better towards explaining his actions as Headmaster, because Voldemort would continue to target Hogwarts even with Draco or Dumbledore gone.
2) Snape was watching Malfoy, that's what he and DD fought about.
Snape was watching Draco for Dumbledore and Narcissa, and he had the Unbreakable Vow to uphold. Where does that leave Snape's allegiance? Is it possible report to Dumbledore about Draco without violating the Vow?
3) DD had to wait to give himself time to finish with Harry. The whole of the WW is at stake, so chances must be taken.
I don't know. Dumbledore didn't really impart information in a speedy fashion-- it took a whole year and just a handful-and-a-half of private lessons. I agree that the whole Wizarding World is at stake, but is a schoolground with children the best place for the battlefield? Can Dumbledore do his job as head of the Wizengamot and Leader of the Order and not be Headmaster? Does Dumbledore believe that Hogwarts will be the battlefield regardless of where he is personally and regardless of what Draco gets up to?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 9, 2006 12:41 pm (#770 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 9, 2006 12:42 pm
In a quick response to Mrs. Brisbee, if DD wouldn't act to stop Draco without proof doesn't that rather point to the possibility that Snape didn't tell DD what Draco was up to? Certainly if Snape had told DD he would have done something more of a preventative nature to protect Draco from LV. Then we wouldn't have the scene on the tower, of course, and would have to content ourselves with analying some other portion of the book!
I also enjoyed Wynnleaf's "decidingly" animated post! I think that while JK may make the occasional unintentional flub, she by and large knows exactly how she is writing something and for what effect.
Now I must go stack wood. Yippee.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 2:40 pm (#771 of 1629)
M brisbee I don't know. Dumbledore didn't really impart information in a speedy fashion
Well, that was partly Harry's fault. It took him a while to get Slughorn's memory.
I think too, that DD needed to wait for Malfoy to realize he couldn't kill. If DD had confronted Malfoy he would have denied it. But the knowledge that DD knew would be available to LV through Draco, and Draco would have been in danger. I tend to think DD knew more than he let on, and that's why he was confident he could wait until Malfoy was ready to attempt to kill DD in earnest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 9, 2006 4:03 pm (#772 of 1629)
Yes, It would be more valuable for Draco to find out for himself that he is no killer. If he had been prevented from killing (or trying to kill) that would leave the door open to say, "yes, I am a killer, I just didn't get the chance."
I had forgotten that DD tells Draco he knew about his trying to kill him, so I guess Snape had to have told him. Hmmm, too many masculine pronouns....I have wood for brains right now!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 9, 2006 5:42 pm (#773 of 1629)
Mrs. Brisbee --...because my feelings are that if Dumbledore can't put his duty as Headmaster first, he shouldn't be Headmaster.—
We know about the bottle that was sent before Christmas, but Dumbledore didn't, at the time, right? I can't really recall, were there any more Hogsmeade visits, aside from Apparation lessons, that took place after Christmas? The one that was supposed to be on Ron's birthday was cancelled and that's early March. Maybe Dumbledore thought he could keep the students safe by simply cancelling Hogsmeade visits, since that's why Katie was able to come in contact with the necklace? If so, that would mean he was doing his duty as Headmaster as well as trying to handle the Vow, Draco and his mission, and Harry's lessons.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Nov 9, 2006 7:52 pm (#774 of 1629)
Hi wynnleaf! I don't really want to open up a big debate, but I just wanted to give a quick reply to your last post. I was simply focusing on the comments made that a body couldn't fall from a tower and "just" have a trickle of blood and unusually bent arms/legs. I wasn't attempting to deal with the glasses, the locket, or the events on the tower before the fall.
And I do find it a bit confusing that in your post #686, you said that oddities "are things which deviate from the usual way JKR has had things occur in the past in her world, OR things that deviate from what would normally happen in the real world.", but when I provide evidence of things that normally happen in the real world I am told that Jo is not reporting, she is creating (bold emphasis mine). I was just attempting to point out that something people have considered an "oddity" is not really odd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 8:24 pm (#775 of 1629)
Mediwitch- I won't claim to answer for Wynnleaf, but as one who has also pointed out that Jo is creating, not reporting, it isn't that Jo can create any situation. It isn't that her creating is allowed to defy reality. The point I (and I think Wynnleaf) was trying to make with the 'creating not reporting' comment, is that Jo is choosing the words she uses and creating the situation, not reporting (reacting) to something she witnessed. Therefore when she chooses to create certain situations, we have to take notice.
Point in case. We are told that DD is gravely injured and his hand appears dead. But, at the Dursleys’, Harry sees DD draw his wand so quickly that he barely sees it.
In this case, Jo has chosen to have DD use his injured hand so quickly that Harry barely sees it. She decided this, which is odd, because he's supposed to be badly injured in his wand hand. This is seen by some as a clue that something is amiss. Jo could have said he drew his wand, he drew his wand quickly etc., but she chose 'so quickly Harry barely saw it.' She isn't a reporter who saw this happen, she is a writer who chose this description for a reason. So the obvious question is "why would an author who has just told us DD is getting old, slow, is gravely injured, choose to have DD draw his wand so quickly with his injured hand, that it is barely seen'?
The difference is not that Jo can make anything happen, because she's creating, but when she chooses very specific words to describe an event it is a choice and we have to ask why she made that choice. (This also appplies to her decision to tell us at the cave that DD moved like a much younger wizard. Why would she add that, unless it meant something?)
Hope that makes sense.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 776 to 800
Lady Arabella Wed May 18, 2011 9:34 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Nov 9, 2006 8:28 pm (#776 of 1629)
Alas, too late to edit.
Right, T Vrana, I get that. I'm having trouble tying it into wynnleaf's previous quote that I cited in my last post. That's the piece I'm not following. Maybe it's just me, and I should stop posting so late at night!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 9, 2006 8:33 pm (#777 of 1629)
Was it with his injured hand? We know he drew the wand very quickly and that Harry sees Dumbledore's injured hand as he puts the wand back into his robes, but we aren't specifically told the hand holding the wand is the injured one, are we? When we see him try to remove a stopped bottle containing a memory later with the same injured hand, he shows signs of pain and some degree of immobility in the hand and has to use his wand to get the stopper out.
I was thinking much the same, Mediwitch. If it's not something that is totally impossible, if it's something that can happen in the real world, how can it be an "oddity" by means of deviating from the natural occurrence of things. But, as I pointed out earlier, it seems some of us are just determined to see "oddities" and some of us are just determined not to. I'm becoming more and more reminded of the 'shipping wars, pre-HBP, where people were determined to see or ignore signs of a particular 'ship, despite opposition either way. We all have our own ways of interpreting these books and only time will tell who's interpretations were right or wrong.
So, back to the question at hand, on who's terms did Dumbledore die? I'm thinking it was his terms as I think his dying to protect both Draco and Snape will have positive after effects for the "good" side.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 8:38 pm (#778 of 1629)
Not sure what you may have posted as real world which was shot down by 'creativity', but am curious. I do think some things that are real world will not occur in HP, and perhaps a realistic body falling 90+ feet is one of them (but then, don't decide to throw a body from 90+ feet).
I still have a problem with the glasses...
SE-
As he replaced his wand in his pocket, Harry saw that his hand was blackened...
Harry would have noted if DD was switching hands, I think, since he notes the speed, the casual flicks etc.
DD also uses this hand at the cave to detect traces of old magic, so it is not as dead as we have been lead, at times, to believe.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 9, 2006 8:51 pm (#779 of 1629)
The real world comparison was the body after falling 90+ feet. As Mediwitch so rightly pointed out, it would most likely resemble the way we see Dumbledore's body, therefore, the state of his body didn't "deviate from what would normally happen in the real world" and thus, by the definition given, wouldn't constitute an "oddity". I'm assuming this is Mediwitch's point as well. Just clarifying, not really looking to get back into the whole "oddity" debate.
I don't think we were ever led to believe Dd's hand was dead, at least I didn't get the feeling it was supposed to be dead. We are told it's gravely injured and a sign of that injury is the blackened skin and loss of mobility (even if it is specifically in terms of finger dexterity and not overall mobility). I don't see how that has anything to do with "oddities" that are supposed to be surrounding Dumbledore's death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 8:59 pm (#780 of 1629)
Hermione calls it dead- looking, and it is called dead- looking at other times, though I can't recall exactly who (though Harry is one) and where.
It is the sum of all the oddities to me, as they all relate. If DD's supposed decline is a lie, then much follows from it. Any one 'oddity' alone is no big deal, but as you add them up, you start to get a possible pattern. If DD's decline is a lie, why? To set up a scenario that LV would believe? That Draco or Snape could kill the one wizard LV feared? Does this afford Snape some extra protection? If LV could not defeat DD, but Snape did, that questions LV's power. But if the rumor is spread that LV shook DD at the MoM and he is aging, slowing down, then Snape killing DD is not a threat to LV's power.
So if this was a lie, what else is an illusion? Perhaps DD's death?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 9:39 pm (#781 of 1629)
Snape Victorious:
DD's right hand was as blackened and dead-looking as it had been on the night he had come to fetch Harry...
“It looks as if it's died,” said Hermione.
Lord Voldemort's Request:
DD's hand was blackened and dead-looking once more.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 9, 2006 11:43 pm (#782 of 1629)
I know it's called "dead-looking" but I meant I never got the sense that it actually was so. I never assumed I could take Hermione or Harry's word for it that it was actually dead and so never thought it as such. Again, obviously my own personal view.
--So if this was a lie, what else is an illusion? Perhaps DD's death?--
I think this last line is a bit of a leap in logic, but, of course, I don't find as many "oddities" as you seem to. Again, some see things one way and others see them another.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 6:08 am (#783 of 1629)
SE- Not a leap in logic if you paste it all together. I wasn't leaping from the hand to the death. Have posted, over a year ago, a complete scenario with all the 'oddities' put together. But that is still where it belongs on the Dead or Not, and Major Death threads.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 10, 2006 7:16 am (#784 of 1629)
With everything else aside, the AK lifting Dumbledore up and over the wall is odd to me. Dumbledore is mentioned as slowly sliding down the wall while he is talking with Draco. At the point when Snape enters I almost see Dumbledore in a sitting position with the wall at his back and his head. The AK lifted him up and over the wall suspending him in midair for a few seconds before he dropped. If Snape put a lot of power behind that AK, as some are saying, wouldn't it just have blasted Dumbledore through the wall?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 7:27 am (#785 of 1629)
M Pomfrey- Excellent point. Even if he wasn't that low, he was much lower than usual. The AK hit him directly in the chest, not from below, but from an upright Snape, so from above. Why would he be lifted up?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 10, 2006 7:29 am (#786 of 1629)
In reply to SE: If DD died (probable, I think) I would like to believe it was on his terms as well.But, one of the oddities that others point to as possible evidence that he is alive ,or died from something other than an AK, I see as evidence of Snape's possible hatred/resentment for DD. That oddity is DD being blasted over the wall. Then his dying wouldn't be on his own terms at all.
If one were to look for evidence that DD is alive, however, the explanation of Snape and DD deliberately painting a picture of a weakened DD in order to make it seem more plausible for Snape to have killed him makes some sense. But I posted previously that I can also seem Snape hating DD and saying he is weak out of spite.
I think the castle walls are pretty thick, therefore it seems likely to me that a strong AK would lift him up and not through a wall. If indeed we can believe that it was an AK that lifts him! Which I guess I can, being of a gullible nature!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 10, 2006 11:56 am (#787 of 1629)
T Vrana, I only said it was a leap because I don't see the oddities that you do. If I did, it may not be, but I don't.
Annie Infante --But, one of the oddities that others point to as possible evidence that he is alive ,or died from something other than an AK, I see as evidence of Snape's possible hatred/resentment for DD. That oddity is DD being blasted over the wall. Then his dying wouldn't be on his own terms at all.--
Hm, I dunno, it might still be on his terms if Snape's hatred/resentment was directed at what he was doing rather than who he was doing it to, or if it were derived from his resenting Dumbledore not listening to him and thus finding themselves in the position where Snape had to kill him (a sort of "I knew this was going to happen, why wouldn't you listen to me, this is your own fault" thought process).
Personally, I've been wondering if Dumbledore didn't already have some idea that Voldemort had recruited Draco and thus the rumors of his increasing weakness were meant to force Voldemort into assigning the kid such a task. Maybe Dumbledore had planned all along to get Draco to attempt to kill him so he could prove to Draco that he wasn't a killer and send him and his mother into hiding? See, these are the types of puzzles I see around Dumbledore's death. There's plenty of them, even without the question or whether or not he really died.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sandylee - Nov 11, 2006 5:25 pm (#788 of 1629)
I was remembering the conversation that Hagrid overheard between DD and Snape and the phrase "you take too much for granted." While I have always assumed that Snape probably referred to DD telling him he'd have to AK him, I always thought the phrase sounded just a bit "off" if that was Snape's meaning. However, suppose what Snape was referring to was DD devising a complex plan? Then the phrase "you take too much for granted" makes perfect sense. If DD tried to plan out exactly how he and Snape would respond, assuming he could predict just what Draco would do, then he was indeed taking too much for granted.
Wynnleaf,
Late to the party here, but that's excellent.
Wouldn't it be terrific if Book 7 were to include a Pensieve memory of precisely this scene, so that we would all know exactly what transpired in that argument between Snape and Dumbledore?
It would not only satisfy our curiosity directly about that scene, but could be a simple way of explaining the arrangements which had been made about the night Dumbledore died. We might be able to figure out exactly what went wrong -- if anything -- even without any additional explanation, plus it would provide strong evidence of Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore.
Very tidy, it could be.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 11, 2006 6:33 pm (#789 of 1629)
One of the oddest points to me is why, in OotP, Fawkes can presumably leave Hogwarts and appear on the spot in the MoM to swallow an Avada for Dumbledore, but leaves him on the tower to die. That gives me the impression that Dumbledore either accepted his death, or knew it was coming and had a chance to be involved in planning it.
Other people on various boards have noticed this, too. I don't want to imply it's an entirely original idea of mine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 11, 2006 6:58 pm (#790 of 1629)
But Die you introduced it to me, and I must say that is the most cognitive thought yet on this thread. Well Done!!
We have had CSI come in to do scene analysis on wand trajectory for the big leap but your statement really brings home the Dumbledore at peace concept.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 11, 2006 7:20 pm (#791 of 1629)
Or DD had a plan theory....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Saracene - Nov 12, 2006 12:46 am (#792 of 1629)
On AK and DD's closed eyes, I'm not convinced that they indicate anything different about AK itself.
Yes, Cedric and the Riddles died with their eyes wide open. But IMO the question to ask is, what was the reason for that? Did the spell itself magically cause their eyes to open? Or were they opened simply because, in both cases, the victims died sudden deaths and the last micro-seconds of their lives were likely to be filled with shock and horror? We can be pretty sure I think that neither Cedric nor Riddles asked Voldemort to kill them.
So personally, I think that DD's closed eyes may be an indication that he died in a situation vastly different to Cedric's or Riddles' - but not necessarily an indication that there was something different about AK itself.
DD's body being raised to fall over the wall is admittedly a much more compelling argument for "different" AK.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 12, 2006 6:50 am (#793 of 1629)
Ahh, Fawkes. Hadn't remembered him. Prior to that remembrance I was quite happy to blame Snape for killing DD out of hatred. Now I must wonder why Fawkes didn't save him. Only thing that would make sense is for DD to have told him not to. Ouch. Think I'll wander off and pout....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 12, 2006 7:37 am (#794 of 1629)
For Fawkes not to come to the "rescue" (even if such rescue was impossible), seems to imply that DD knew ahead of time to make sure Fawkes didn't come. Would everyone mostly agree on that?
If DD knew ahead of time to make sure Fawkes wouldn't come, it means that he almost certainly knew he would personally be facing death that night -- right? Or at least the appearance of death.
He'd know the life threatening situation would be Draco's doing. He'd know Snape would need to be involved. He got all those Order members to come, but set them in the corridors.
If he knew he'd be facing a life threatening situation that night, he'd plan for it. If he didn't want Fawkes coming to his aid, he certainly didn't want the Order members to do so . If he didn't want Order members protecting him, then why did he have them come at all? He must have known there would be additional threats -- not just Draco trying to take his life.
Sooo... that means DD knew 1. Draco would make an attempt on his life and he would either die or appear to die. 2. He knew Draco wouldn't really kill him, so he knew that Snape would need to try (or die). 3. He knew other dangers would arise in the castle and brought in Order members to deal with it.
Now here's the problem. If DD knew all these things, why would he arrange his own death -- because that's what it amounts to. If he already knew Draco would make an attempt that night and all the rest, and he was going to be making plans anyway in order to adjust the outcomes to suit his plans -- why plan it so that he dies?
Even if you think DD died on the tower, do you think he planned to die on the tower? What do you think he planned to happen? Why would he plan to die that night? Why not plan a way to live?
If he was working from a plan (and I think Fawkes absence ensures that it was a plan), was it a plan to die?
I don't think DD had developed a plan for this death. I think the evidence points more toward a plan to fake his death and that his plan included Snape.
However, I think events did not work exactly according DD's plan. The biggest evidence of that are his two attempts to send Harry to Snape, both of which failed because of events progressing more swiftly than he expected. And indeed, if you really think about the timing, the DE's got into the castle almost too quickly considering that they should have found DD's absence that night a surprise. It makes sense that DD might have thought he'd have a bit more time than he did. In any case, DD's plans to send Harry to Snape and get Snape to come to him were messed up by how fast everything was moving. So in the end, what happened on the tower was not exactly according to DD's plan.
He either did or did not die on the tower, but I don't think he intended to die on the tower. Why, given the fact that he had plenty of time to plan everything out, would he plan to die that night? It's one thing to accept the inevitable. It's another thing to set in motion a plan that includes your own death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 8:25 am (#795 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- I agree with most everything you say except your very first conclusion. I don't think DD needed to tell Fawkes not to save him. I believe DD summons Fawkes if he needs him. (As Harry was able to summon Fawkes in the Chamber). Therefore, IMHO, he chose not to summon Fawkes for a reason, and that reason is that he had a plan. All the rest still works.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 12, 2006 10:36 am (#796 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, it is indeed an interesting question. Why would Dumbledore plan to die? I confess I have not a clue, but.....of one thing I am certain. There has to be a reason and we will be told of that reason in book 7. I have a sneaking suspicion that it has to do with this whole Harry and Voldemort thing. You reckon? LOL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rafael Barbosa - Nov 12, 2006 10:51 am (#797 of 1629)
I apologize for skipping about 400 of the 800 messages, call me 'hasty', anyway the point I wanted to bring up and which I haven't see thrown around much depends first on believing that DD's demise had a purpose. That being said, Harry has great raw potential, but the fight at the Ministry in OotP showed he's yet to be on par with LV. What if that boost Harry needed to have a fighting chance against LV was achieved by that 'branch of ancient magic LV knows nothing about'? DD like Lily loved Harry enough to invoke a protection for him. I believe Lily just gave her life for Harry as a mother's instinct not thinking of what it would accomplish, therefore the protection she gave Harry was very basic, an LV repellent if you will. But DD being so learned and capable could give Harry some truly amazing powers through his self- sacrifice. Think of it as the anti-horcrux, where instead of a dark wizard killing an innocent for personal gain, a good wizard sacrifices himself for another for their gain. Maybe Harry will have more than one life with which fight LV. Anyway, ramblings from a huge, but unsophisticated fan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 1:56 pm (#798 of 1629)
Rafael- Interesting idea, though DD did tell Harry it is love that will be his power. I do think DD's 'death' has already acted to help Harry in that he matures immensely from the moment of DD's 'death' (can't type death yet without the ' ' ). Plus, DD's sacrifice was really for Malfoy and maybe Snape. I agree Harry seems hardly ready to take on LV. He had a rough time with Snape. But Harry's ability to love and be loved, and his courage, have brought him this far. I think he really needs to do this without DD imparting his powers to him, but that's just my opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rafael Barbosa - Nov 12, 2006 2:43 pm (#799 of 1629)
Yes it will be Harry's ability to love which will be key, but I don't think that his love and any help DD may have wanted to impart are necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact knowing DD, anything he may have done for Harry may only be activated through Harry's love, lest Harry change his ways after DD's 'death'. Not being pigheaded just wanting for LV's demise to be vicariously perpetrated by DD through Harry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 12, 2006 5:21 pm (#800 of 1629)
I have a question that I have been wrestling with for some time now and can't get past it. The time it took to for the events to go together.
We know from Draco that in order to pull off the Dark Mark to set the trap, it was triggered by Rosemerta with the coin. Dumbledore goes into Hogsmead with Harry and Rosemerta sees them. Dumbledore and Harry apparate to the ocean and cave etc. How long were they gone? More precisely, how long did it take to accomplish all that they did. The swimming, climbing, figuring out the cave deal, the boat, and then the escape, the swim , and them back to Hogsmead. To my way of thinking, this was a few hours at least. Rosemerta was letting the cat out for the night, and the Three Broomsticks was closed.
Back at the castle, when did Draco get the message from Rosemerta, get up to the 7th floor, get the Death Eaters from B & B, then through the cabinet, get on the hunt, set the Death Mark and finally wait for DD to return.
The timing just doesn't seem right. It can't have been too long, as the kids took their Felix which doesn't last that long in order to take part in the fight. Someone has to have a better handle on it then me.
Mediwitch - Nov 9, 2006 8:28 pm (#776 of 1629)
Alas, too late to edit.
Right, T Vrana, I get that. I'm having trouble tying it into wynnleaf's previous quote that I cited in my last post. That's the piece I'm not following. Maybe it's just me, and I should stop posting so late at night!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 9, 2006 8:33 pm (#777 of 1629)
Was it with his injured hand? We know he drew the wand very quickly and that Harry sees Dumbledore's injured hand as he puts the wand back into his robes, but we aren't specifically told the hand holding the wand is the injured one, are we? When we see him try to remove a stopped bottle containing a memory later with the same injured hand, he shows signs of pain and some degree of immobility in the hand and has to use his wand to get the stopper out.
I was thinking much the same, Mediwitch. If it's not something that is totally impossible, if it's something that can happen in the real world, how can it be an "oddity" by means of deviating from the natural occurrence of things. But, as I pointed out earlier, it seems some of us are just determined to see "oddities" and some of us are just determined not to. I'm becoming more and more reminded of the 'shipping wars, pre-HBP, where people were determined to see or ignore signs of a particular 'ship, despite opposition either way. We all have our own ways of interpreting these books and only time will tell who's interpretations were right or wrong.
So, back to the question at hand, on who's terms did Dumbledore die? I'm thinking it was his terms as I think his dying to protect both Draco and Snape will have positive after effects for the "good" side.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 8:38 pm (#778 of 1629)
Not sure what you may have posted as real world which was shot down by 'creativity', but am curious. I do think some things that are real world will not occur in HP, and perhaps a realistic body falling 90+ feet is one of them (but then, don't decide to throw a body from 90+ feet).
I still have a problem with the glasses...
SE-
As he replaced his wand in his pocket, Harry saw that his hand was blackened...
Harry would have noted if DD was switching hands, I think, since he notes the speed, the casual flicks etc.
DD also uses this hand at the cave to detect traces of old magic, so it is not as dead as we have been lead, at times, to believe.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 9, 2006 8:51 pm (#779 of 1629)
The real world comparison was the body after falling 90+ feet. As Mediwitch so rightly pointed out, it would most likely resemble the way we see Dumbledore's body, therefore, the state of his body didn't "deviate from what would normally happen in the real world" and thus, by the definition given, wouldn't constitute an "oddity". I'm assuming this is Mediwitch's point as well. Just clarifying, not really looking to get back into the whole "oddity" debate.
I don't think we were ever led to believe Dd's hand was dead, at least I didn't get the feeling it was supposed to be dead. We are told it's gravely injured and a sign of that injury is the blackened skin and loss of mobility (even if it is specifically in terms of finger dexterity and not overall mobility). I don't see how that has anything to do with "oddities" that are supposed to be surrounding Dumbledore's death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 8:59 pm (#780 of 1629)
Hermione calls it dead- looking, and it is called dead- looking at other times, though I can't recall exactly who (though Harry is one) and where.
It is the sum of all the oddities to me, as they all relate. If DD's supposed decline is a lie, then much follows from it. Any one 'oddity' alone is no big deal, but as you add them up, you start to get a possible pattern. If DD's decline is a lie, why? To set up a scenario that LV would believe? That Draco or Snape could kill the one wizard LV feared? Does this afford Snape some extra protection? If LV could not defeat DD, but Snape did, that questions LV's power. But if the rumor is spread that LV shook DD at the MoM and he is aging, slowing down, then Snape killing DD is not a threat to LV's power.
So if this was a lie, what else is an illusion? Perhaps DD's death?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 9:39 pm (#781 of 1629)
Snape Victorious:
DD's right hand was as blackened and dead-looking as it had been on the night he had come to fetch Harry...
“It looks as if it's died,” said Hermione.
Lord Voldemort's Request:
DD's hand was blackened and dead-looking once more.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 9, 2006 11:43 pm (#782 of 1629)
I know it's called "dead-looking" but I meant I never got the sense that it actually was so. I never assumed I could take Hermione or Harry's word for it that it was actually dead and so never thought it as such. Again, obviously my own personal view.
--So if this was a lie, what else is an illusion? Perhaps DD's death?--
I think this last line is a bit of a leap in logic, but, of course, I don't find as many "oddities" as you seem to. Again, some see things one way and others see them another.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 6:08 am (#783 of 1629)
SE- Not a leap in logic if you paste it all together. I wasn't leaping from the hand to the death. Have posted, over a year ago, a complete scenario with all the 'oddities' put together. But that is still where it belongs on the Dead or Not, and Major Death threads.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 10, 2006 7:16 am (#784 of 1629)
With everything else aside, the AK lifting Dumbledore up and over the wall is odd to me. Dumbledore is mentioned as slowly sliding down the wall while he is talking with Draco. At the point when Snape enters I almost see Dumbledore in a sitting position with the wall at his back and his head. The AK lifted him up and over the wall suspending him in midair for a few seconds before he dropped. If Snape put a lot of power behind that AK, as some are saying, wouldn't it just have blasted Dumbledore through the wall?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 7:27 am (#785 of 1629)
M Pomfrey- Excellent point. Even if he wasn't that low, he was much lower than usual. The AK hit him directly in the chest, not from below, but from an upright Snape, so from above. Why would he be lifted up?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 10, 2006 7:29 am (#786 of 1629)
In reply to SE: If DD died (probable, I think) I would like to believe it was on his terms as well.But, one of the oddities that others point to as possible evidence that he is alive ,or died from something other than an AK, I see as evidence of Snape's possible hatred/resentment for DD. That oddity is DD being blasted over the wall. Then his dying wouldn't be on his own terms at all.
If one were to look for evidence that DD is alive, however, the explanation of Snape and DD deliberately painting a picture of a weakened DD in order to make it seem more plausible for Snape to have killed him makes some sense. But I posted previously that I can also seem Snape hating DD and saying he is weak out of spite.
I think the castle walls are pretty thick, therefore it seems likely to me that a strong AK would lift him up and not through a wall. If indeed we can believe that it was an AK that lifts him! Which I guess I can, being of a gullible nature!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 10, 2006 11:56 am (#787 of 1629)
T Vrana, I only said it was a leap because I don't see the oddities that you do. If I did, it may not be, but I don't.
Annie Infante --But, one of the oddities that others point to as possible evidence that he is alive ,or died from something other than an AK, I see as evidence of Snape's possible hatred/resentment for DD. That oddity is DD being blasted over the wall. Then his dying wouldn't be on his own terms at all.--
Hm, I dunno, it might still be on his terms if Snape's hatred/resentment was directed at what he was doing rather than who he was doing it to, or if it were derived from his resenting Dumbledore not listening to him and thus finding themselves in the position where Snape had to kill him (a sort of "I knew this was going to happen, why wouldn't you listen to me, this is your own fault" thought process).
Personally, I've been wondering if Dumbledore didn't already have some idea that Voldemort had recruited Draco and thus the rumors of his increasing weakness were meant to force Voldemort into assigning the kid such a task. Maybe Dumbledore had planned all along to get Draco to attempt to kill him so he could prove to Draco that he wasn't a killer and send him and his mother into hiding? See, these are the types of puzzles I see around Dumbledore's death. There's plenty of them, even without the question or whether or not he really died.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sandylee - Nov 11, 2006 5:25 pm (#788 of 1629)
I was remembering the conversation that Hagrid overheard between DD and Snape and the phrase "you take too much for granted." While I have always assumed that Snape probably referred to DD telling him he'd have to AK him, I always thought the phrase sounded just a bit "off" if that was Snape's meaning. However, suppose what Snape was referring to was DD devising a complex plan? Then the phrase "you take too much for granted" makes perfect sense. If DD tried to plan out exactly how he and Snape would respond, assuming he could predict just what Draco would do, then he was indeed taking too much for granted.
Wynnleaf,
Late to the party here, but that's excellent.
Wouldn't it be terrific if Book 7 were to include a Pensieve memory of precisely this scene, so that we would all know exactly what transpired in that argument between Snape and Dumbledore?
It would not only satisfy our curiosity directly about that scene, but could be a simple way of explaining the arrangements which had been made about the night Dumbledore died. We might be able to figure out exactly what went wrong -- if anything -- even without any additional explanation, plus it would provide strong evidence of Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore.
Very tidy, it could be.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 11, 2006 6:33 pm (#789 of 1629)
One of the oddest points to me is why, in OotP, Fawkes can presumably leave Hogwarts and appear on the spot in the MoM to swallow an Avada for Dumbledore, but leaves him on the tower to die. That gives me the impression that Dumbledore either accepted his death, or knew it was coming and had a chance to be involved in planning it.
Other people on various boards have noticed this, too. I don't want to imply it's an entirely original idea of mine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 11, 2006 6:58 pm (#790 of 1629)
But Die you introduced it to me, and I must say that is the most cognitive thought yet on this thread. Well Done!!
We have had CSI come in to do scene analysis on wand trajectory for the big leap but your statement really brings home the Dumbledore at peace concept.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 11, 2006 7:20 pm (#791 of 1629)
Or DD had a plan theory....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Saracene - Nov 12, 2006 12:46 am (#792 of 1629)
On AK and DD's closed eyes, I'm not convinced that they indicate anything different about AK itself.
Yes, Cedric and the Riddles died with their eyes wide open. But IMO the question to ask is, what was the reason for that? Did the spell itself magically cause their eyes to open? Or were they opened simply because, in both cases, the victims died sudden deaths and the last micro-seconds of their lives were likely to be filled with shock and horror? We can be pretty sure I think that neither Cedric nor Riddles asked Voldemort to kill them.
So personally, I think that DD's closed eyes may be an indication that he died in a situation vastly different to Cedric's or Riddles' - but not necessarily an indication that there was something different about AK itself.
DD's body being raised to fall over the wall is admittedly a much more compelling argument for "different" AK.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 12, 2006 6:50 am (#793 of 1629)
Ahh, Fawkes. Hadn't remembered him. Prior to that remembrance I was quite happy to blame Snape for killing DD out of hatred. Now I must wonder why Fawkes didn't save him. Only thing that would make sense is for DD to have told him not to. Ouch. Think I'll wander off and pout....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 12, 2006 7:37 am (#794 of 1629)
For Fawkes not to come to the "rescue" (even if such rescue was impossible), seems to imply that DD knew ahead of time to make sure Fawkes didn't come. Would everyone mostly agree on that?
If DD knew ahead of time to make sure Fawkes wouldn't come, it means that he almost certainly knew he would personally be facing death that night -- right? Or at least the appearance of death.
He'd know the life threatening situation would be Draco's doing. He'd know Snape would need to be involved. He got all those Order members to come, but set them in the corridors.
If he knew he'd be facing a life threatening situation that night, he'd plan for it. If he didn't want Fawkes coming to his aid, he certainly didn't want the Order members to do so . If he didn't want Order members protecting him, then why did he have them come at all? He must have known there would be additional threats -- not just Draco trying to take his life.
Sooo... that means DD knew 1. Draco would make an attempt on his life and he would either die or appear to die. 2. He knew Draco wouldn't really kill him, so he knew that Snape would need to try (or die). 3. He knew other dangers would arise in the castle and brought in Order members to deal with it.
Now here's the problem. If DD knew all these things, why would he arrange his own death -- because that's what it amounts to. If he already knew Draco would make an attempt that night and all the rest, and he was going to be making plans anyway in order to adjust the outcomes to suit his plans -- why plan it so that he dies?
Even if you think DD died on the tower, do you think he planned to die on the tower? What do you think he planned to happen? Why would he plan to die that night? Why not plan a way to live?
If he was working from a plan (and I think Fawkes absence ensures that it was a plan), was it a plan to die?
I don't think DD had developed a plan for this death. I think the evidence points more toward a plan to fake his death and that his plan included Snape.
However, I think events did not work exactly according DD's plan. The biggest evidence of that are his two attempts to send Harry to Snape, both of which failed because of events progressing more swiftly than he expected. And indeed, if you really think about the timing, the DE's got into the castle almost too quickly considering that they should have found DD's absence that night a surprise. It makes sense that DD might have thought he'd have a bit more time than he did. In any case, DD's plans to send Harry to Snape and get Snape to come to him were messed up by how fast everything was moving. So in the end, what happened on the tower was not exactly according to DD's plan.
He either did or did not die on the tower, but I don't think he intended to die on the tower. Why, given the fact that he had plenty of time to plan everything out, would he plan to die that night? It's one thing to accept the inevitable. It's another thing to set in motion a plan that includes your own death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 8:25 am (#795 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- I agree with most everything you say except your very first conclusion. I don't think DD needed to tell Fawkes not to save him. I believe DD summons Fawkes if he needs him. (As Harry was able to summon Fawkes in the Chamber). Therefore, IMHO, he chose not to summon Fawkes for a reason, and that reason is that he had a plan. All the rest still works.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 12, 2006 10:36 am (#796 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, it is indeed an interesting question. Why would Dumbledore plan to die? I confess I have not a clue, but.....of one thing I am certain. There has to be a reason and we will be told of that reason in book 7. I have a sneaking suspicion that it has to do with this whole Harry and Voldemort thing. You reckon? LOL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rafael Barbosa - Nov 12, 2006 10:51 am (#797 of 1629)
I apologize for skipping about 400 of the 800 messages, call me 'hasty', anyway the point I wanted to bring up and which I haven't see thrown around much depends first on believing that DD's demise had a purpose. That being said, Harry has great raw potential, but the fight at the Ministry in OotP showed he's yet to be on par with LV. What if that boost Harry needed to have a fighting chance against LV was achieved by that 'branch of ancient magic LV knows nothing about'? DD like Lily loved Harry enough to invoke a protection for him. I believe Lily just gave her life for Harry as a mother's instinct not thinking of what it would accomplish, therefore the protection she gave Harry was very basic, an LV repellent if you will. But DD being so learned and capable could give Harry some truly amazing powers through his self- sacrifice. Think of it as the anti-horcrux, where instead of a dark wizard killing an innocent for personal gain, a good wizard sacrifices himself for another for their gain. Maybe Harry will have more than one life with which fight LV. Anyway, ramblings from a huge, but unsophisticated fan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 1:56 pm (#798 of 1629)
Rafael- Interesting idea, though DD did tell Harry it is love that will be his power. I do think DD's 'death' has already acted to help Harry in that he matures immensely from the moment of DD's 'death' (can't type death yet without the ' ' ). Plus, DD's sacrifice was really for Malfoy and maybe Snape. I agree Harry seems hardly ready to take on LV. He had a rough time with Snape. But Harry's ability to love and be loved, and his courage, have brought him this far. I think he really needs to do this without DD imparting his powers to him, but that's just my opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rafael Barbosa - Nov 12, 2006 2:43 pm (#799 of 1629)
Yes it will be Harry's ability to love which will be key, but I don't think that his love and any help DD may have wanted to impart are necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact knowing DD, anything he may have done for Harry may only be activated through Harry's love, lest Harry change his ways after DD's 'death'. Not being pigheaded just wanting for LV's demise to be vicariously perpetrated by DD through Harry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 12, 2006 5:21 pm (#800 of 1629)
I have a question that I have been wrestling with for some time now and can't get past it. The time it took to for the events to go together.
We know from Draco that in order to pull off the Dark Mark to set the trap, it was triggered by Rosemerta with the coin. Dumbledore goes into Hogsmead with Harry and Rosemerta sees them. Dumbledore and Harry apparate to the ocean and cave etc. How long were they gone? More precisely, how long did it take to accomplish all that they did. The swimming, climbing, figuring out the cave deal, the boat, and then the escape, the swim , and them back to Hogsmead. To my way of thinking, this was a few hours at least. Rosemerta was letting the cat out for the night, and the Three Broomsticks was closed.
Back at the castle, when did Draco get the message from Rosemerta, get up to the 7th floor, get the Death Eaters from B & B, then through the cabinet, get on the hunt, set the Death Mark and finally wait for DD to return.
The timing just doesn't seem right. It can't have been too long, as the kids took their Felix which doesn't last that long in order to take part in the fight. Someone has to have a better handle on it then me.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 801 to 825
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:20 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 5:37 pm (#801 of 1629)
Which way bothers you? Is it that Draco didn't have enough time? Or that he had too much?
If it is the first, apparition takes a big chunk of time out of any scenario. The DEs didn't really need to prepare, grab your wand, apparate to B&B's jump in the cabinet and go.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 12, 2006 5:44 pm (#802 of 1629)
Too much time for DD and Harry, not much time for the Hogwarts and Draco. If Draco got his crew together right away, were they roaming the castle for hours before DD got back?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 12, 2006 6:17 pm (#803 of 1629)
Back at the castle, when did Draco get the message from Rosemerta, get up to the 7th floor, get the Death Eaters from B & B, then through the cabinet, get on the hunt, set the Death Mark and finally wait for DD to return.
Thom, you seem to be assuming that the DE's were practically "waiting at the door," of the cabinet. But Draco should have had no idea that that would be the night that the attack would take place. He should have had no knowledge that DD was leaving that night until Rosmerta's alert.
Therefore, while DE's may have been on some sort of constant standby (all year??) they would have to have been alerted and rounded up in some way, gathered at Borgin and Burkes, and then gone through the cabinet.
Actually, it seems to me that DD expected to have more time, and that the attack got started very quickly, all things considered.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 6:28 pm (#804 of 1629)
Draco had fixed the cabinet before DD and Harry left the castle, so no need for the DEs to be on alert all year. Draco could have sent word when the cabinet was fixed. From then on, they would be on standby. Then, a little later, DD left the castle, and Draco set things in motion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 12, 2006 6:33 pm (#805 of 1629)
Thanks for not thinking the idea of Fawkes not being on the tower was totally off the wall. It makes me feel as if I'm good for SOMETHING here.
I'm not sure how Dumbledore is supposed to have summoned him in a split second to swallow that Avada in the MoM, though, Can anyone elaborate?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 7:17 pm (#806 of 1629)
In DD's office, OOTP, when Fudge tries to arrest DD, when DD grabs Fawkes tail feathers, they 'pop' vanish. No reason DD can't summon Fawkes just as quickly, or as quickly as casting a spell. Popping in and out seems to be quite easy for Fawkes. I imagine they have a 'magical' connection. I don't mean to justify this with 'it is just magic', that's a cop out, but I do think Fawkes and DD have a connection that would not require a patronus-o-gram or a wand, just an "I need you."
Also, DD has always been able to read Tom, he may have anticipated the AK, he is an ok legilimens himself.
But, ouch, maybe that is why he didn't summon Fawkes on the tower, he didn't see that one coming, Snape is a decent occlumens.
Forget I even 'said' that....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 12, 2006 8:55 pm (#807 of 1629)
Well as usual I have not been clear. Dumbledore and Harry have been gone for, what I guess as 3 to 4 hours, at least. So how did Draco warn the Death Eaters, get them into B&B's and into the castle, and sneak them through to the tower to set off the Dark Mark. The only way I can see that he could have gotten them alerted and in was to have them there to begin with, which doesn't make sense. 3 to 4 hours doesn't seem to be long enough. Shoot, a day doesn't seem long enough.
So how did Draco organize it on such short notice? I hope that this post is clearer.
Die, if my kidding has in any way upset you, I am forever sorry. As most know I love humor, and use it as a vehicle for familiarity and friendship. Your belief in your convictions is most refreshing and pointed, and I find great value in your insight. Please keep it up.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 12, 2006 8:55 pm (#808 of 1629)
To give an idea about the time frame for that evening, Harry left Gryffindor Tower shortly before 9 p.m., and ran into Trelawney outside the RoR right after Draco was whooping it up because he finally fixed the cabinet. It was perhaps nearly 9:30 when Dumbledore and Harry departed.
Flitwick burst into Snape's office at Midnight with the news that Death Eaters were in the school. Figure that Dumbledore and Harry had arrived back in Hogsmeade a few minutes before, and were probably on the Tower at about this time.
Something odd: I noted is that Dumbledore has Harry hide under the invisibilitycloak when they leave, but Dumbledore--who doesn't need a cloak to go invisible-- strolls off to Hogsmeade in plain sight, almost advertising the fact that he is leaving the school.
Also odd is that Rosmerta saw Harry when he and Dumbledore returned from the cave, because Harry wasn't wearing the cloak, but the Death Eaters didn't seem to know that he was accompanying Dumbledore. Rosmerta doesn't seem to have reported it.
I also agree with everyone who thinks it odd Fawkes didn't go to Dumbledore. Could Dumbledore have set Fawkes to guard something? Perhaps simply to keep watch over the Founders' Objects in the Headmaster's office? It's true that the office should be impenetrable to all but the rightful Headmaster, but Voldemort does have (or had) at least two Founders' Objects, at least one of which possessed unknown powers that could be used to breach Hogwarts security.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Phoenix - Nov 12, 2006 10:49 pm (#809 of 1629)
Hi everyone. I usually spend most of my posting time on the "Treasure Hunt" thread, but I came across something I thought might be of interest here in my research. This may be a crazy post (it wouldn't be my first!), but it seems like another clue to me that DD may not be dead.
On JKR's website, you can access a book of Runes. She's created 10 runes based on the Fantastic Beasts book, each rune being one of the beasts. Rune #7 is left blank and listed as unknown. I took this to mean it somehow represents Book 7, and she's not wanting to give out too many clues. Following the logic, I assume runes 1 - 6 represent books 1 - 6 respectively. (I found reasons to rule out the other 3, but that's another story). Book 6 is represented by the Salamander, rune 6 because it can exist out of the fire for up to 6 hours. In FB, the description reads as follows:
The salamander is a small fire-dwelling lizard that feeds on flame. Brilliant white, it appears blue or scarlet depending upon the heat of the fire in which it makes its appearance.
Salamanders can survive up to six hours outside a fire if regularly fed pepper. They will live only as long as the fire from which they sprang burns. Salamander blood has powerful curative and restorative properties.
Given the major event in Book 6 is DD's death, I was thinking it's possible the salamander would be symbolic of DD. The salamanders are described as brilliant white, and there has been a lot of white associated with DD, beginning with his hair and beard, and the white tomb where bright white flames erupted around DD's body. DD's eyes are normally bright blue, but are described as "blazing" when angry (depending upon the 'heat' of the fire).
The clues are primarily the following lines - 1) That they will live only as long as the fire from which they sprang burns. - DD is from Gryffindor, which JKR has said symbolically represents the element of fire. I was thinking as long as the fire continues in Gryffindor, in Harry, he'll continue to exist. 2) the salamander blood has powerful curative and restorative properties.
I also thought DD had salamander like qualities - his graciousness allows him to fit in anywhere and take on many roles. He relates comfortably in any situation.
This symbolism certainly can be applied elsewhere, and could mean DD symbolically lives on through Harry, but I just found it so striking when I began thinking of it in terms of DD. Anyways, thanks for your patience with my ramblings, and sorry to interrupt!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 13, 2006 1:00 am (#810 of 1629)
Snape is a decent occlumens. (T. Vrana)
Decent? At the train station in OoP, Lupin tells Harry that Snape is a "superb Occlumens." I believe him.
Merlin knows that if anyone would have to be brilliant at hiding their true thoughts, feelings and memories, it would be a double agent! Especially with Voldemort being, as Snape himself expressed it, so powerful at being able to penetrate people's minds "with absurd ease" (which I assume, on the other side, Dumbledore was too).
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 13, 2006 5:07 am (#811 of 1629)
Thom,
I agree that timing is interesting here, and Draco and DE's were moving very quickly -- almost too quickly. But I have a theory to explain it.
Mrs Brisbee, thanks for giving a time frame for that night. If DD was seen by Rosmerta around 9:30, and Draco had only completed the cabinets 30 minutes prior, yet about a couple of hours later when DD and Harry return the Dark Mark is already up, it means Draco and DE's were moving very fast.
DE's would not have been waiting at Borgin and Burkes prior to Draco completing the cabinet. Even after it was completed they wouldn't be waiting there on every random night on the off chance that Draco would alert them that DD had left. And especially not on this night, when Draco hadn't yet completed the cabinet.
So DD would expect that Draco would need extra time to gather the DE's together. Assuming DD was working from a plan, the biggest glitches seem to be DD lacking the time to get Harry to Snape and Snape to return to him. He tries this twice and is thwarted by the fact that Draco and the DE's are moving faster than he expected.
However, as you guys know, I think Book 7 will reveal that someone else is a traitor. Suppose the DE's were alerted that DD was leaving prior to Rosmerta's alert? After all, DD did tell Order members that he'd be gone that night, and had many of them patrolling the corridors. This would explain Draco putting the finishing touches on completing the cabinet that particular night, and why DE's would be right there waiting for him to complete it, already prepared to make their attack that very night.
By the way, the very fact that Draco and the DE's wanted DD to be gone from the castle before starting the attack lends credence to the notion that there were more plans for the attack than simply killing DD when he returned.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 13, 2006 6:49 am (#812 of 1629)
Laura, interesting post!
Why would DD have risked going to the cave with it's unknown dangers (basin w/ potion) if he knew he would later have to meet Draco,etc? If he had wanted to live, or believed in a serious threat, it seems to me he would have wanted to be in tip top shape to face events. So either he wasn't expecting to be effected by events in the cave, or he knew exactly what would happen in the cave and figured that into some plan. Does that make sense?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 13, 2006 9:30 am (#813 of 1629)
So either he wasn't expecting to be effected by events in the cave, or he knew exactly what would happen in the cave and figured that into some plan. -- Annie Infante
Dumbledore does tell Harry explicitely that he doesn't know which Horcrux is in the cave, and that he doesn't know what protections might be there.
From HPB, Ch 25, "The Seer Overheard":
“Harry: "Which Horcrux is it? Where is it?"
Dumbledore: "I am not sure which it is-- though I think we can rule out the snake-- but I believe it to be hidden in a cave on the coast many miles from here, a cave which I have been trying to locate for a very long time: the cave in which Tom Riddle once terrorized two children from his orphanage on their annual trip; do you remember?"
Yes, said Harry. "How is it protected?"
Dumbledore: I do not know; I have suspicions which may be entirely wrong.”
So, unless we believe that Dumbledore would outright lie to Harry, he didn't know what exactly could be found in the cave.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 13, 2006 10:09 am (#814 of 1629)
Thom and Wynnleaf- 3 hours to grab your wand, apparate to B&B's, and take a cabinet ride. Why is this so hard to believe?
DE's would not have been waiting at Borgin and Burkes prior to Draco completing the cabinet. Even after it was completed they wouldn't be waiting there on every random night on the off chance that Draco would alert them that DD had left. And especially not on this night, when Draco hadn't yet completed the cabinet.
They don't need to wait at B&B's! They can apparate!!! And, yes, once Malfoy let them know the cabinet was fixed, I would bet they would be expecting a 'call' (coins) from Draco every night. They are trying to break into Hogwarts. LV is really quite serious about it. This is a war, they can't be ready at a moment's notice to attack Hogwarts? Three hours is more than enough time if a plan was in place. That plan includes DD going for a drink, so all the time horcrux hunting was actually bonus time!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 13, 2006 10:44 am (#815 of 1629)
Three hours is more than enough time if a plan was in place.-- T Vrana
I agree. With almost a year to prepare, and near instantaneous means of transportation and communication, the Death Eaters should be capable of scrambling an attack in well under the allotted time. I know people who are on call for emergencies, and they just need to have a pager and phone handy, and stay within the acceptable response time distance from the hospital.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 13, 2006 1:15 pm (#816 of 1629)
I'm a senile old lady. Nothing much bothers me at this point. LOL!
But I still don't see why Fawkes couldn't help Dumbledore on the tower, as he did before, if Dumbledore had wanted his help. Especially if you beleive, which I don't, but I know where it's coming from, that Dumbledore could summon Fawkes instantaneously. There must have been a reason Dumbledore did not want/ask for that help. Fawkes IS still a wild card in that scene, to me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 13, 2006 2:13 pm (#817 of 1629)
For whatever reason Fawkes sang at the end of HBP, it clearly indicates that he was aware of what was going on. But he didn't come. Does DD have to actively summon him? I doubt it. Fawkes knew something was up and he didn't come. To me, that means that DD communicated to Fawkes ahead of time not to come.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 13, 2006 2:26 pm (#818 of 1629)
For whatever reason Fawkes sang at the end of HBP, it clearly indicates that he was aware of what was going on.
Odd, that. I never thought about it until now, but Fawkes doesn't immediately start his lament at Dumbledore's death, but only after everyone has gathered in the hospital wing. Does that mean that Fawkes didn't know what had happened to Dumbledore until that point? That's what seems to be indicated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 13, 2006 2:40 pm (#819 of 1629)
Mrs Brisbee,
I did think about that when I wrote my post above. But Fawkes seems to hang out on his perch in the office. I don't think anyone came up to inform Fawkes. One might suppose that he could have seen the portrait and figured it out -- but without any evidence to the contrary, one would think a portrait goes up at the moment of death -- unless someone puts it up, like DD prior to going out on his excursion. So if DD really died and the portrait appeared at the moment of death, Fawkes (if he didn't already know), would still have known at the moment of death, which doesn't explain why he waited to sing.
Theories (forestalling them) about how portraits maybe take an hour or so to appear will never (I'm 99% sure), be explained in canon, so I'll assume we have figure it out based on the information we've got, without help from avenues that canon will likely not explain.
Fawkes knows what goes on with DD, without DD having to tell him about it. Which means that if DD didn't want Fawkes to come help, he'd need to have communicated that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 13, 2006 2:50 pm (#820 of 1629)
Fawkes knows what goes on with DD, without DD having to tell him about it.
Er, is that canon?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 13, 2006 3:17 pm (#821 of 1629)
Fawkes knows what goes on with DD, without DD having to tell him about it.
Er, is that canon?
I didn't mean in the general way, but in this instance. What I meant was that we know that Fawkes knew what occurred with DD. We can be fairly certain no one had gone into DD's office to tell Fawkes -- Harry and McGonagall seem to be the first ones in there later that night. I don't think we're going to be told later that Fawkes got his info from a portrait.
That only leaves Fawkes knowing all on his own or being told prior to the event by DD. Without the expectation that JKR is going to offer us up some canon scene where we learn how Fawkes learned of DD's death (or whatever), we have to assume he learned it all on his own or earlier from DD.
Whether Fawkes learned it from DD, or has such a close connection to DD that he sensed what was going on with DD at the time, we know that he must have known something of what was going on with DD -- yet he did not come.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 13, 2006 3:59 pm (#822 of 1629)
I agree, Wynnleaf. Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore called Fawkes to the CoS, according to Dumbledore. How did Fawkes know where Harry was? I think the same applies with Dumbledore. .Fawkes knows. I think that it was prearranged by Dumbledore that Fawkes not come.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 13, 2006 4:49 pm (#823 of 1629)
I have no trouble believing that the world's most powerful wizard, who did things with a wand as a teenager that the OWL examiners had never seen, and who is the only known wizard to train a phoenix, would be able to summon his pet phoenix to him if needed. And since we have seen Fawkes pop in and out of rooms, popping in when needed seems reasonable. Just MHO. If DD is dead, I'm sure Fawkes sensed his loss, without needing to be told.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 13, 2006 6:04 pm (#824 of 1629)
Sorry for my long day but to get back to the time thing for a bit. I agree that given the war senario 3 hrs could happen, but how long were they running around in the castle before Dumbledore and Harry returned. They set out the Dark Mark to trap Dumbledore. When? The Dark Mark was in the air before Rosemerta came outside to tell Dumbledore. According to Rosemerta it was jsut at that time. Well how did Malfoy know when to turn it loose. Also with all the enchantments surrounding the castle to keep prying eyes out of the castle, how could the Mark be seen from Hogsmead? It's got to be a couple of miles away. You all have still not convinced me on how Draco and his posse were able to run a time line adjacent and concurrent with Dumbledore and Harry to make the Dark Mark happen just at the same moment as when they returned to Hogsmead. If the Dark Mark were lit up for any length of time, surely Hagrid, or Dobby, or the Order members could have looked out the window and seen it.
So many questions, so few answers. Guys, (generic of course) help me out here.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 13, 2006 6:24 pm (#825 of 1629)
Mrs. Brisbee, I stand corrected and am deeply humbled by my horrible memory! Really though, so much is being discussed and thought about. Can you all cut me some slack when I say things less than brilliant (which is most of the time I'm afraid!)?
For what it's worth though I think DD would have had to have told Fawkes to stay away. I don't think anything else could have stopped him from coming to DD's aid. So why did DD do it? It would seem because he knew he was about to die and that he had to die so Fawkes was not allowed to save him this time. The other option mentioned earlier was the possibility of DD needing to fake his death and not having Fawkes blow his cover. But you know what? DD had to die so that Harry can come into his own. As long as DD was alive no one will allow Harry to take his place as leader of the movement to defeat LV. Now that DD is dead the Order has to let Harry take on the challenge as only he can since he alone has the knowledge, given by DD, to defeat LV. In other words, I think in order for the story to advance, DD had to die. Not a brilliant idea to be sure, just MHO.
Oh, and yeah, did he die knowing he was going to die, or not? I know I keep asking the same question!
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 826 to 850
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:21 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 13, 2006 7:07 pm (#826 of 1629)
I'd say that when Dumbledore came to pick Harry up from the Dursley's he knew he'd die sometime sooner than later, but not exactly when. Perhaps by the time he saw the Dark Mark above the Tower he knew his time was up, very soon. Or maybe even when he finished in the Cave.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 13, 2006 7:27 pm (#827 of 1629)
Annie- He had to die, or appear to die, accomplishes the same thing.
Journeymom- And yet, DD said to the Dursley's 'Until we meet again", not "Goodbye", "So long", "Nice to have met you at last", "Take Care", you get the idea. I don't think DD planned on being truly dead by the end of the year.
THOM- Rosmerta is under the Imperius curse, so her word can't be taken. I'm willing to bet she was sitting in her window waiting for DD to show up so she could run out and get DD to the castle.
According to Ron, Malfoy came out of the RoR about an hour after they started watching the room. They first spent some time perusing the Marauders Map looking for Malfoy. So, if they spent half an hour on the map, then went to the RoR, that makes it about 11 when Malfoy comes out. After a bit of stumbling in the dark and finding Lupin et al, they found the DE's heading for the tower. A fight broke out and shortly thereafter, the dark mark was set by Gibbon. Figure this took about 30 minutes, so 11:30. It could have been up for several minutes before DD and Harry returned to Hogsmeade, roughly 11:45. Around midnight Snape stuns Flitwick and heads for the tower.
The mark was set above the tallest tower, so seeing it from within and below, at such a late hour as well, is actually unlikely.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 13, 2006 8:13 pm (#828 of 1629)
T Vrana, the time explanation helps. Thanks for that. I suppose that magical folks, see magical things, as opposed to muggles etc. That can be explained as well, thanks.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 14, 2006 6:02 am (#829 of 1629)
T Vrana-I too had thought about the comment DD makes to the Dursleys. He wouldn't have said that (via JK) if he planned at that point to be dead or even fake dead, would he? Which is some evidence that he is really dead to my way of seeing it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 6:33 am (#830 of 1629)
Not if he planned to fake his death and return at some point.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 14, 2006 7:36 am (#831 of 1629)
True, True. It seems that Snape also thought he would be around when he threatened Harry with detention carrying on the next year. This could mean that Snape did not plan or think he would have to kill Dumbledore or whatever plan they might have had went terribly wrong.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 14, 2006 8:13 am (#832 of 1629)
Ooh, two good points. Those little comments from Dumbledore and Snape both slipped under my radar. By themselves I'm not sure either means anything. Perhaps together they are indicative of something else.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 14, 2006 9:01 am (#833 of 1629)
Annie Infante, I did not mean to sound admonishing! I apologize. I was actually just trying to provide some information. There was a lot going on, and I too would like to know what Dumbledore knew and what he suspected would happen that night.
As for Fawkes, I am not convinced that there is a psychic link between Fawkes and Dumbledore. I remember speculating on some thread that has long since been munched that Dumbledore's scar might actually be a link to Fawkes much like Harry's scar is to Voldemort, and that's why Dumbledore knew Harry's scar would prove important-- but that was ages ago and there has been nothing in the books to support a psychic connection. Fantastic Beasts does not list telepathy or empathy as an attribute of the Phoenix, so I think any speculation that Fawkes knows what Dumbledore is up to and Dumbledore can easily call him at anytime from anywhere is just that-- speculation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 14, 2006 9:11 am (#834 of 1629)
Mrs Brisbee,
I think we're faced with explaining how Fawkes even knew DD was dead (or whatever) -- considering that Fawkes lives in DD's office and no one had been up there yet when Fawkes started to sing.
Some sort of connection with DD seems most likely to explain it.
Besides, DD must have some way of communicating with Fawkes. Are we to believe Fawkes understands English? Maybe. How does Fawkes know what DD wants him to do in OOTP? How does Fawkes know what to do in POA?
DD told Harry in POA that he must have shown great loyalty to DD for Fawkes to come. That doesn't sound like DD was sitting around somehow aware of Harry's loyalty and said, "hey Fawkes, go down and help out in the COS." No, it rather sounds like Fawkes knew of Harry's loyalty -- without anyone having to tell him. That indicates some sort of way of "knowing" that Fawkes has that is most likely magical in nature.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 14, 2006 10:24 am (#835 of 1629)
Or a third option, it happened as it was written? Naaaaaaaaa. Way too boring.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Nov 14, 2006 10:42 am (#836 of 1629)
There is some evidence that the portraits in the Headmaster's office are not overly discreet. I see no problem in knowing how Fawkes knew that Dumbledore had moved on to the retired team.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 14, 2006 10:44 am (#837 of 1629)
I have always thought that Fawkes and Dumbledore are spiritually joined. I would not surprise me at all to learn that Fawkes can magically "know" what Dumbledore is thinking/needing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 10:54 am (#838 of 1629)
Choices- I agree
On the subject of Fawkes knowing when to help versus DD summoning Fawkes-
I would think it would be very dangerous for Fawkes to decide when to help DD, versus DD summoning Fawkes to help in the way DD needs help. For instance, in the MoM two attacks were on their way at DD, an AK and a snake. What if DD was ready to deal with the AK, and Fawkes deals with the AK, and the snake goes unchallenged? DD has to be in control, I would think. I can't think the phoenix decides when to help and DD just waits to see what he'll do before he acts, or that the phoenix is reading DD's mind and deciding how to help. Fawkes is described as a a pet (a very special pet, I admit). DD needs to be in charge, and seems to be able to call Fawkes to the MoM.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 14, 2006 11:25 am (#839 of 1629)
There is some evidence that the portraits in the Headmaster's office are not overly discreet. I see no problem in knowing how Fawkes knew that Dumbledore had moved on to the retired team.
Fawkes understands English, you mean? Hm... maybe. I don't get the impression that's how DD communicates with Fawkes.
It's striking the way he comes to DD's aid in OOTP -- no portraits passing along info, or anyone else sending messages. DD doesn't seem to pause for a message to Fawkes. There must be some sort of internal connection.
And it's not purely DD getting in touch with Fawkes and telling him to do something. In POA, DD's comments about Fawkes helping Harry because Harry showed DD loyalty, seems to strongly suggest that it was not DD determining Harry's loyalty and deciding to send Fawkes to him, but something Fawkes did without an order from DD.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 11:33 am (#840 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- I agree on that last bit. Fawkes is responding to Harry's loyalty and brings him the aid he thinks (knows) will help.
In the pitched battle in the MoM it seems someone must be 'in charge' so there will not be confusion and mistakes. I can't think it was Fawkes over DD.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 14, 2006 6:00 pm (#841 of 1629)
I totally agree - Dumbledore is in charge of Fawkes. Fawkes may know when Dumbledore needs him, he goes to Dumbledore, and then Dumbledore directs him as to what to do to help him. I think that communication between them may be either verbal or mental.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 14, 2006 6:32 pm (#842 of 1629)
Fifty posts and every one of them worth the reading. What a wonderful line of discussion, and I missed most of it. Figures my internet provider would pick this last weekend to break the internet.
Anyway, so what I'm getting, summary wise, in the last fifty posts (and please correct me if I misunderstand) is that:
# 1 - Dumbledore and Snape may have had a plan of a faked death or something as they seem to think, at the beginning of HBP, that they'll be around next year.
# 2 - Dumbledore had some sort of plan in mind when he was up on the tower as he didn't call Fawkes to save him.
# 3 - The trip to the cave and back only took two and a half hours, respectively, and the DEs only took about an hour to hour and a half to get organized and through the cabinet into Hogwarts.
#4 - Draco and the DEs moved quicker than Dumbledore's plan may have allowed for.
So, where does this leave us in terms of what really happened with Dumbledore's death? I rather agree with all these points and, after looking at what people have said about the timeline of events that night, it almost seems like the DEs were planning to jump Dumbledore on his way back into Hogwarts (they planned to do this by forcing him up the the tower roof) but he took too long in the cave, which led to them being engaged in a battle with the Order members, which would explain why only Draco met DD on the tower roof. So, what then? If DD's plan didn't allow him enough time, or allowed Draco too much, then, the plan having broken down, would it be plausible for Snape to have truly AKed Dumbledore on the tower?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 14, 2006 6:47 pm (#843 of 1629)
Bingo!!! Give that girl a kewpie doll. That is exactly my time problem. I have been trying to back track the events and came up with the same conundrum. My other thought is that Snape instead of not, did he panic because of the vow and pull the trigger?
Please take a stab at either or both sides.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 14, 2006 8:00 pm (#844 of 1629)
So, the time conundrum is... that the DEs could've been in the castle for thirty minutes to an hour before Dumbledore got there? That's based on the times people were giving in the last fifty or so posts. All canon quotes below are in blue, per usual.
The 9 o'clock declaration is based on... when curfew goes into effect, maybe? We know that with only fifteen minutes left until curfew, most people had already returned to their common rooms, Harry then met and proceeded with Trewlany to DD's office. This is when Draco is celebrating. Harry talks to Dumbledore for a very short time and then is sent after his cloak after being told to meet DD in the entrance hall in five minutes time.
So, what time is it now, about 9:00? (assuming that's curfew; I doubt the discussion with Trewlany and Dumbledore took more than 15 to 20 minutes). Harry does everything in the common room in five mintues and they embark on their little adventure. It's a fair walk to Hogsmeade from the castle. (What a 10 minute walk, maybe?) They see Rosmerta, who then contacts Malfoy, who then, supposedly, goes through the cabinet to get the DEs ready.
So, what we're now looking at 9:10 to 9:20, although I could see 9:30. We know that Ron and the gang looked the map over, couldn't see Draco, and decided he was in the RoR, where they set up watch. Draco "came out of the room about an hour after [they] started keeping watch". So, that's what around 10:30 to 11:00, give or take?
Lupin tells Harry that the kids "ran into us almost immediately and told us what had happened. We found the Death Eaters later, heading in the direction of the Astronomy Tower." I notice Lupin doesn't say how much later they found them, which is interesting. This is when one of them goes up to set off the Dark Mark. Rosmerta says the Dark Mark has only been there for a few minutes, but we can't really trust this as she's being controlled to lure Dumbledore into a trap.
Then Hermione said that it was nearly midnight when Flitwick came to fetch Snape and got stunned. Harry and Dumbledore must've been on the tower by that point because Snape rushes out and straight to the tower where he AKs DD. So, we have, what, at least an hour unaccounted for when the DEs were either running around Hogwarts, being pursued by the Order, or when the DEs and Order were fighting? Yeah, that does seem a bit odd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 14, 2006 8:15 pm (#845 of 1629)
Okay, I do concede that there seems to be some sort of empathic link between Fawkes and Dumbledore, at least when they are near to each other. But I really don't want to speculate about how much information they can actually communicate to each other, and over what distance. Fawkes is probably the most mysterious and unexplained character in the series. I wonder too why Fawkes didn't make an appearance that night, but I don't want to assume that the Dumbledore/Fawkes connection allowed for detailed exchanges or communication from afar.
I am having a bit of a problem with Fawkes as a Long Range Loyalty-To-Dumbledore Detector, as he was with Harry in CoS. Wouldn't Fawkes just know that certain people weren't loyal, like Fake Moody? Quite frankly, it's all making my head hurt.
Anyway, it's most likely Fawkes was in Dumbledore's office that night, but there is a slim possibility he was elsewhere; the Phoenix song came from the grounds, not Hogwarts. I doubt it means anything.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 14, 2006 8:24 pm (#846 of 1629)
The other thought is that Draco took a ride in the cabinet and got the DE together and brought them back through. Were they just a handful waiting nightly at the Knockturn Alley Bar and Grill? The other problem is how did they sneak around the castle for that hour? I can see Peeves, or even House Elves spotting them. Certainly the portraits around the castle could talk or alert someone, unless, there was someone else inside that helped. Or, did they just stay in the ROR for the hour?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 14, 2006 9:28 pm (#847 of 1629)
Well, Lupin does say something like the darkness powder apparently running out by the time they caught up with them, so, would portraits, house-elves, or whoever else have seen them through the powder? Also, they may have wandered through the castle for only 15-30 minutes and then fought with the Order for 15-30 minutes, thus making it nearly midnight when McGonagall sends Flitwick to fetch Snape. So, what would they have been doing during their wandering time? You'd think they would've just headed straight for the tower.... I'm going to have to look at this again.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 9:35 pm (#848 of 1629)
M Brisbee- Fawkes appears at the MoM, in London, many, many miles away from Hogwarts. How? There must be a connection.
SE- Your timeline is off. But it is late....tomorrow....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 14, 2006 10:33 pm (#849 of 1629)
Are you referring to this, T Vrana, (from an earlier post by T Vrana) "So, if they spent half an hour on the map, then went to the RoR, that makes it about 11 when Malfoy comes out."
We have no reason to think they spent 30 minutes looking at the map before going to the RoR.
“I messed up, Harry,” said Ron bleakly. "We did like you told us: We checked the Marauder's Map and we couldn't see Malfoy n it, so we thought he must be in the Room of Requirement, so me, Ginny, and Neville went to keep watch on it... but Malfoy got past us."
It sounds more like they spent a minimum amount of time on the map. Although, I concede that they probably wasted a few minutes contacting DA members (all Hermione had to do was use the coins and see who showed up, though, which wouldn't have taken much time). Still, even if that added in an extra 30 minutes, that leaves 30 minutes during which the DEs were either wandering through Hogwarts or fighting with the Order. Also, I was being rather gracious with discussion time. It doesn't even take me 15-20 minutes to read the discussion between Harry and Trewlany or Harry and Dumbledore, out loud, even with dramatic pauses, so I doubt it took that long to actually happen. Anyway, I'll wait for what you have to say tomorrow. Have a good sleep.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Nov 15, 2006 5:55 am (#850 of 1629)
A good reason why Fawkes would not have helped Dumbledore is that he was off doing something else of importance. No idea what it could be. Maybe he's just a strong believer in fate and this is that fate. Do we know that Fawkes is a he?
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 851 to 875
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:22 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 15, 2006 9:48 am (#851 of 1629)
SE- No, it wasn't the map moment. It was Harry, Trelawney, DD. I don't think 15 minutes is generous (did you really read out loud with dramatic pauses.....LOL!). By the time Harry leaves, bumps into Trelawney, discusses her experience, gets her moving, gets the Snape news, gets to DD, rants about Snape, gets the ok to go with DD, goes back to Ron and Hermione, explains, and returns to DD in the Entrance Hall, has to be more than 15 minutes.
(Going off to re-enact with stop watch and dramatic pauses...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 15, 2006 10:08 am (#852 of 1629)
Dumbledore and Snape may have had a plan of a faked death or something as they seem to think, at the beginning of HBP, that they'll be around next year. Dumbledore had some sort of plan in mind when he was up on the tower as he didn't call Fawkes to save him. The trip to the cave and back only took two and a half hours, respectively, and the DEs only took about an hour to hour and a half to get organized and through the cabinet into Hogwarts. Draco and the DEs moved quicker than Dumbledore's plan may have allowed for. (S.E.Jones)
This is an excellent summary, S.E.Jones. It shows, by the way, why I came up with my theory that perhaps (if DD is truly dead), he and Snape still planned to fake his death, but were thwarted in that goal by the changing time frame.
SE- No, it wasn't the map moment. It was Harry, Trelawney, DD. I don't think 15 minutes is generous (did you really read out loud with dramatic pauses.....LOL!). By the time Harry leaves, bumps into Trelawney, discusses her experience, gets her moving, gets the Snape news, gets to DD, rants about Snape, gets the ok to go with DD, goes back to Ron and Hermione, explains, and returns to DD in the Entrance Hall, has to be more than 15 minutes. (T Vrana)
In addition to these from T Vrana, I think it takes longer to get from the Entrance Hall to Hogsmeade. Remember, in POA it takes about 10 minutes just to get from the tower where Sirius is down to the Hospital wing. And remember Snape and the DE's run across the grounds to the Hogwarts gates. Even at a run it took a bit of time to get to the gates (broken up by fighting). Given the length of time to get from one end of the castle to the other from inside -- you can compare that to this map of Hogwarts and the environs that JKR drew [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and I'm guessing at a minimum of 20 minutes from the Entrance Hall to Hogsmeade -- possibly more like between 20 and 30.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 15, 2006 10:37 am (#853 of 1629)
It's twilight while Dumbledore and Harry are walking to Hogsmeade. What time is sunset in the U.K. in early June?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 15, 2006 10:46 am (#854 of 1629)
Mid-June, sunset is 9:30 pm in London. Day= 17 hours long. But go further north and it it 18 hours (Edinburgh), so 9:30 sunset for northern England early June works.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 15, 2006 11:16 am (#855 of 1629)
Okay, using the sunset calculator at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration website, I got a sunset of just past 10 p.m. for Edinburgh, Scotland for June 15th, 1998.
Edit: Okay, so twilight falls after the sunset. Now, I know I had some reason to assume curfew was at 9 p.m., something stated somewhere in the book, but I can't remember where or what at the moment. What if we were to move curfew up to 10 p.m., instead?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 15, 2006 2:08 pm (#856 of 1629)
--did you really read out loud with dramatic pauses.....LOL!—
Yeah, doesn't everybody? Too many years reading to younger siblings I guess....
--By the time Harry leaves, bumps into Trelawney, discusses her experience, gets her moving, gets the Snape news, gets to DD, rants about Snape, gets the ok to go with DD, goes back to Ron and Hermione, explains, and returns to DD in the Entrance Hall, has to be more than 15 minutes.—
Actually, I was saying that it took 15-20 minutes to bump into Trewlany, then walk while talking to her to DD's office, where he then argues with Dumbledore. DD gives him another five minutes for him to go get his cloak. That would by 20-25 minutes. Even if you allowed for an extra five minutes leeway in here, that would be 30 minutes, making them leave at 9:30. (The Lex, by the way, does say that curfew is set at 9:00 for 5th years so the same is probably true for everyone else.) I have to agree with Wynnleaf that it probably takes a good while to walk to Hogsmeade, which would close our 30-45 minute time gap quite nicely, on Harry and Dumbledore's part, but not necessarily on Draco and the DEs' part.
Mrs. Brisbee, I was always taught that twilight is when the sun has gone down but he light is still in the sky, though fading, not when it actually gets dark. So, if Dumbledore is watching the sun set at 9:00 when Harry gets to his office, then twilight would start around 9:30 and end around 10:00.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 15, 2006 4:33 pm (#857 of 1629)
Mrs. Brisbee, I was always taught that twilight is when the sun has gone down but he light is still in the sky, though fading, not when it actually gets dark. So, if Dumbledore is watching the sun set at 9:00 when Harry gets to his office, then twilight would start around 9:30 and end around 10:00.
Right, that's what I meant. But I got 10 p.m. for sunset in Scotland on June 15th, because it is so far North. So twilight would be after 10 p.m. on that day. Though we could be looking at earlier in June.
(I'm coming up with a 9:44 sunset for June 2, 1998. Actually, I'm finding even small adjustments in minutes of latitude and longitude can make a significant difference in time)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 15, 2006 4:48 pm (#858 of 1629)
I don't think we can necessarily go with what actually happened as JKR hasn't always followed matching up days of the week and their dates to the actual days of the week back in the '90s. She may have even had two Mondays in one week at some point. We are told that, just prior to 9:00 (which is apparently curfew), Dumbledore was standing at the window in his office watching the sun set, so sunset was already taking place then, not later in the night.
(By the way, why are you looking up 1998?)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 15, 2006 5:05 pm (#859 of 1629)
What, is it supposed to be 1997? The years between decades markers always run together for me!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 15, 2006 5:09 pm (#860 of 1629)
Yeah, it should be 1997. Harry was born in 1980, so he turns 17 in July 1997 (which hasn't happened yet as far as the story's concerned), which means DD's death happens June 1997.
Still, JKR doesn't always follow historically accurate dates. I still say the sun sets whenever she says it does, and she said it did at 9:00 that night.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 15, 2006 7:34 pm (#861 of 1629)
I suspect you are right, but since Rowling actually lives somewhere in Scotland, it is also possible that she was using her local time of sunset as a marker. 10 o'clock would get rid of that extra hour the Death Eaters need to be running around the corridors of the seventh floor, but the only references to curfew I can think of places it at 9 o'clock, so probably best to stick with the nine o'clock time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 15, 2006 8:33 pm (#862 of 1629)
Everyone is talking time right now, but I'm thinking Fawkes. A phoenix is a very spiritual bird, symbolically speaking. I have no problem believing that Fawkes has a bond with DD that transcends him being simply a special pet. I think Fawkes can "know" when he is needed and responds accordingly. Harry needed him and so he answered Harry's need. DD needed him in the MOM and so he responded. And it also appears that DD can call Fawkes and request things of him as well. So why did he not come to the tower? Will we really never see or hear from him again? What does it mean to the events on the tower that he didn't come?
Well sorry, I always ask more questions and have no answers most of the time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 16, 2006 11:06 am (#863 of 1629)
Annie- We were talking about Fawkes a ways back in the thread. I think if you look through the previous few pages, you should be able to find it. I agree with you. He should have been able to appear on the tower, if he could appear in a nanosecond, as one friend of mine put it, at the DoM to swallow that Avada.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 16, 2006 11:38 am (#864 of 1629)
I wonder if we could use Filch's sort of psychic connection with Mrs Norris as an example? Not everybody seems to have a connection with their pets. Hermione and Crookshanks, Neville and his toad, even Harry and Hedwig don't seem to have a psychic connection. But there is a precedent set with Filch and Mrs Norris. Perhaps that's the way it was with Dumbledore and Fawkes. I can imagine McGonagall mentioning in passing, "Albus had this unusually intuitive relationship with Fawkes."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 16, 2006 8:18 pm (#865 of 1629)
Harry has that connection with Buckbeak
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 16, 2006 9:22 pm (#866 of 1629)
He does?!?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 17, 2006 7:28 am (#867 of 1629)
Sure he does. Twice. First in the forest Harry is saved from Lupin, and in HBP Buckbeak shows up to thwart Snape near the gate. Harry didn't call him, but Buckbeak jumped in between Harry and Snape, just in the nick of time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 17, 2006 7:51 am (#868 of 1629)
Hmmm. Buckbeak was there to hear and see these things happen. Fawkes wasn't at the MoM. I think there is a difference.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 17, 2006 8:31 am (#869 of 1629)
Buckbeak vs. Lupin is movie contamination. I think Buckbeak was staying with Hagrid in HBP, so he was probably close enough to see that Harry was in danger.
And though it seems likely that Fawkes can be called somehow over great distances, it is also possible that Dumbledore sent Fawkes a Patronusgram, or sent Phineas Nigellus or Everard to fetch Fawkes, and that's why he showed up at the Ministry.
Fawkes showing up in CoS with the Sorting Hat and Sword is one of those mysteries that make my brain hurt. If Fawkes is a long distance Loyalty detector, why are there ever any problems with traitors?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 17, 2006 9:08 am (#870 of 1629)
Ok Ok, but we were talking about animals coming to the rescue without being called, and Buckbeak came to mind. geeez you guys. pick, pick, pick. (Goes to the mirror to look at the welts).
Remember T, you can pick your nose, you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your friend's nose.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 17, 2006 9:18 am (#871 of 1629)
I suppose it's possible that Buckbeak could become a "familiar" to Harry, but that really hasn't happened that we know of so far in the books. The relationship between Dumbledore and Fawkes, as well as between Filch and Mrs Norris, is very close and they are together a great deal. Harry doesn't seem particularly close to Buckbeak. Buckbeak does accept Harry, lets him ride him, etc. so coming to Harry's defense at the end of HBP makes sense. But Harry didn't call Buckbeak, nor did Buckbeak need any sort of "connection" with Harry to see that he was in trouble. After all, Buckbeak was living right behind Hagrid's hut, and Harry and Snape had only just passed the hut when Buckbeak came.
However, as regards Fawkes, we never see Dumbledore summon Fawkes in OOTP with a patronus or anything. We don't even see DD noticably take any time to appear to be communicating with anything or anyone else outside the room during his fight with LV. Yet Fawkes appears right on cue to swallow the AK.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 17, 2006 9:34 am (#872 of 1629)
Sorry, Thom. Not trying to pick! You are right that Buckbeak seems as loyal and protective as Fawkes.
Wynnleaf, it occurs to me that there is a common element to the two events where Fawkes shows up out of the blue: Lord Voldemort. Hmmm, is there something there?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 17, 2006 9:36 am (#873 of 1629)
However, as regards Fawkes, we never see Dumbledore summon Fawkes in OOTP with a patronus or anything. We don't even see DD noticeably take any time to appear to be communicating with anything or anyone else outside the room during his fight with LV. Yet Fawkes appears right on cue to swallow the AK.
I agree, Wynnleaf. A little too convenient that DD had sent a patronus or Phineas etc., and Fawkes arrived just in time. DD seems to be able to summon Fawkes in an instant.
M Brisbee
On the 'loyalty detector', perhaps Fawkes can sense the complete loyalty Harry has for DD and responds by bringing the hat and sword. It is the level of Harry's loyalty that brought him. So others may not be evil or traitorous (Slughorn, for instance), and still not reach the same threshold as Harry, complete and utter loyalty, DD's man through and through. In other words, Fawkes isn't so much detecting loyal vs. traitor. He's detecting complete devotion, and only that could bring him.
Curious that he did not pop into the Chamber.
THOM- ewww!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 17, 2006 12:42 pm (#874 of 1629)
Could Dumbledore have SENT Fawkes to Harry in the Chamber? Maybe when he realized he had to get back to the school, that he had been sent on a fool's errand? Maybe he sent word to Fawkes somehow, as he prepared to return, to check on Harry?
I know, I'm grasping. But he did say he watched Harry more than Harry knew, and Harry did say Dumbledore often gave him the tools he needed to do things. Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but I hope you know what I mean.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 17, 2006 12:48 pm (#875 of 1629)
The 'fool's errand' was PS/SS I think. In CoS, DD had been removed from office by Lucius and the Board. He did return, in time to send Fawkes, perhaps. I tend to like the idea that Harry's complete devotion spoke to Fawkes, though.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 876 to 900
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:24 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 17, 2006 12:50 pm (#876 of 1629)
Die, I think that is an entirely plausible idea. I could very well be that Dumbledore sent Fawkes, or as T Vrana said, it could have been Fawkes responding to Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 17, 2006 12:55 pm (#877 of 1629)
die & choices- The only problem I have is that DD tells Harry Fawkes came to him because he showed great loyalty. So, if DD sent Fawkes, then he would not have done so if Harry had not shown him great loyalty? He would have let him perish? It seems that there was more going on than DD sending Fawkes to the rescue, a subtle magic, that taps the connection between DD & Fawkes, and Harry & DD.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
shadzar - Nov 17, 2006 11:48 pm (#878 of 1629)
Sorry for my absence, ben busy helping someone with a website setup...
So Fawkes may yet come to Harry's aid. Seems very obvious, but what would Fawkes bring this time. DD is no longer in the school, and Fawkes left the school. DD belongings got moved where? Fawkes isn't hampered by the windows and doors of the school, and can travel to where ever Harry and the gang are at any time, possibly following Hedwig. Could Aberforth be storing something crucial that only Fawkes or DD could get to that Harry will need?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 18, 2006 1:16 am (#879 of 1629)
I never got the impression that DD sent Fawkes to Harry in the Chamber. He says to Harry on p.244 (Cdn): "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you."
Called Fawkes to you. As in, the strength of Harry's loyalty to DD is what summoned Fawkes to him. Like the phoenix has some internal sense of who is one hundred per cent loyal to DD. It just doesn't sound like DD - or anyone else - *sent* Fawkes to help Harry.
Also, look at the second time Fawkes came to Harry unbidden. The graveyard scene in GoF, when Harry was taking on Dumbledore's greatest enemy. The Phoenix song told Harry not to break the wand connection: the only way he could hope to survive in the duel against V. There is no way Dumbledore could have sent Fawkes to Harry in that case because DD did not know where Harry was or what he was going through. On p.603 (Cdn) of GoF he explicitly says, "I need to know what happened after you touched the Portkey in the maze, Harry." He hears the whole story from Harry, puts it together with what Barty Jr. said, and comes to the conclusion that Harry is telling the truth about all that occurred in the graveyard. But he needed to hear Harry's account of the event first. Therefore, Fawkes went to Harry on his own accord.
In other words, I agree with what T. Vrana wrote in the following quote: " On the 'loyalty detector', perhaps Fawkes can sense the complete loyalty Harry has for DD and responds by bringing the hat and sword. It is the level of Harry's loyalty that brought him. So others may not be evil or traitorous (Slughorn, for instance), and still not reach the same threshold as Harry, complete and utter loyalty, DD's man through and through. In other words, Fawkes isn't so much detecting loyal vs. traitor. He's detecting complete devotion, and only that could bring him.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 18, 2006 5:59 am (#880 of 1629)
T Vrana's explanation works for me. But Fawkes also shows up with the Hat. How did he know to bring that? And Fawkes drops the diary into Harry's lap. What's up with that? That bird seems to know an awful lot that doesn't have anything to do with detecting loyalty.
(Laura, I never got the impression Fawkes went to the graveyard in GoF. It seemed to me that the Phoenix Song was an FX produced by the wands linking.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 18, 2006 6:13 am (#881 of 1629)
Ok, then. Let's say he was there in spirit. (grin)
But it was Harry fighting Dumbledore's greatest enemy possibly to the death that summoned the song - and spirit - of DD's bird to him. *Sort of* the same thing, eh? Same principle anyway. ... Fawkes to the rescue!
And then, when Harry was in the Headmaster's office telling his story, the phoenix instinctively flew over to the boy to comfort him ("There was something comforting about his warm weight.") and heal his wounded leg.
Awww ...
Laura
I could be wrong about this, though.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 18, 2006 6:48 am (#882 of 1629)
M Brisbee- Rather clever pet goes with the rather clever DD.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 18, 2006 10:14 am (#883 of 1629)
Perhaps that is one of the "side-effects" planned by the one (Dumbledore) who commissioned the making of the phoenix feather core wands. Fawkes would encourage and help Harry and he would strike fear and apprehension in Voldemort. Just a thought.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 19, 2006 5:26 pm (#884 of 1629)
I'm not saying, to clarify, that Dumbledore specifically told Fawkes to watch Harry while he was gone that night. That doesn't fit with Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore being the thing that calls Fawkes to him. But Dumbledore could certainly have told Fawkes at some point before that to keep an eye on Harry. Fawkes would not have HAD to go to HELP Harry, if he felt Harry was not being trustworthy. Because Harry did have such loyalty to Dumbledore, Fawkes physically came bringing him what he needed.
I never thought the phoenix song was Fawkes himself helping Harry in the graveyard. Only that he heard what would be most comforting to him. Like a boggart shows you what frightened you most, I think the wand gave Harry something that would comfort him the most...phoenix song.
But none of this explains why Fawkes was so totally absent when Dumbledore was on the tower, and Harry was trying so desperately to free himself and stop what was happening. I think Dumbledore had to have died because he knew it was necessary, and that he accepted it. If he did, Fawkes had to. That phoenix has probably been around for ages, and has seen many masters. He knows mortals are, well, mortal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 19, 2006 6:36 pm (#885 of 1629)
I think somewhere it says DD is the only known wizard to tame a phoenix and keep it as a pet...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 19, 2006 11:51 pm (#886 of 1629)
--That phoenix has probably been around for ages, and has seen many masters.—
JKR has said Fawkes only ever belonged to Dumbledore.
Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005 (underline mine):
Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround - Who did Fawkes previously belong to and will he play a vital role in the next book?
JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next book, which probably gives you a big clue, and he has never been owned by anyone but Dumbledore. You will notice that when Harry goes back in the Pensieve in this book, Fawkes is never there, and no, I am sorry, not in this book, I take that back. When Harry has previously seen the study with a different headmaster he saw it with Dippet and Fawkes was not there then. Fawkes is Dumbledore's possession, not a Hogwarts possession.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 20, 2006 6:18 am (#887 of 1629)
Thanks for the quote. As I see it, though, even if Fawkes had never had another master, a phoenix probably knows that it is natural for wizards, unlike phoenixes, to come to the end of their lives, and unnatural for them to strive for immortality, like Riddle did. He might be able to accept that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 20, 2006 8:12 am (#888 of 1629)
So are we accepting that Fawkes is smarter than the average bear? Seems reasonable to me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 20, 2006 12:24 pm (#889 of 1629)
I think we could get back to the basic question of the Fawkes problem.
Since Fawkes didn't show up at the tower, does that strongly imply that DD particularly wanted him to stay away?
Fawkes seems to know, without being told, that Harry needs him in COS. He seems to know, without being told, exactly when DD needs him at the end of OOTP.
Since Fawkes appears to be able to act on his own -- without a command from DD (although he does follow DD's commands) -- we have to wonder not only why DD didn't call Fawkes to the tower, but why Fawkes didn't come on his own.
The fact that Fawkes did not come to the tower, even though he must have known that DD was in a crisis situation, seems to me to strongly imply that DD had either previously, or while on the tower, somehow communicated to Fawkes that he should not come to help.
While it may be possible that DD could communicate with Fawkes while talking to Draco, it does seem unlikely.
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 Fawke's rescue.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 20, 2006 12:44 pm (#890 of 1629)
He seems to know, without being told, exactly when DD needs him at the end of OOTP.
Since Fawkes appears to be able to act on his own -- without a command from DD (although he does follow DD's commands) -- we have to wonder not only why DD didn't call Fawkes to the tower, but why Fawkes didn't come on his own.
I have to disagree that Fawkes knew, without being told (or summoned), that DD needed him at exactly the moment he appeared in the MoM. At that moment DD was under two threats, but seemed unconcerned. If DD had not summoned Fawkes, and if he did not know he would swallow the AK, how did he know he only had to deal with the snake? It seems to me that DD can multi-task and was controlling the statues, summoning Fawkes and advising him what he needed him to do, and dealing with LV's serpent.
The alternative leaves too much room for error. In battle a leader is needed so that there is no confusion. I don't think Fawkes was acting on his own.
I do agree that DD did not want Fawkes to 'save' him that night, and I have to wonder why Harry isn't asking where FAwkes was.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 20, 2006 5:38 pm (#891 of 1629)
The above should say "I do agree that DD did not want Fawkes to 'save' him that night on the Tower...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 21, 2006 8:51 am (#892 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 21, 2006 8:52 am
Choices, I agree that somehow the fact that Fawkes' feathers were used in both Harry's and LV's wand plays into why he shows up at certain times. He has shown up when Harry and LV are about to be in combat of some sort or another. In SS he doesn't show up maybe because LV was using Quirrel as host. In COS LV is more powerful and Fawkes comes to Harry's aid. In PoA there is no direct Harry/LV battle. In GoF Fawkes comes to Harry's aid via his song when the wands are connected. In OotP he comes to the MoM when LV threatens to harm Harry. In HBP there is no battle between LV and Harry. Do you see what I mean? Maybe DD never summoned Fawkes at all. Maybe he came because the wands that carry his tail feathers were about to battle. Then the fact that Fawkes didn't go to the tower isn't because DD told him to stay away but because Harry and LV were not in combat.
Only had a quick minute before dashing. Hope I made sense.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 21, 2006 9:25 am (#893 of 1629)
But Harry was not about to do battle in the MOM, not when Fawkes arrived. Harry was off to the side and an AK was heading for DD. Fawkes protected DD by swallowing the AK.
Harry was standing earlier with his wand pointed at the floor when LV sent the AK at Harry. No Fawkes to the rescue, DD charmed the statue to take the AK.
Soooo..I don't think the idea really works...sorry..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DJ Evans - Nov 21, 2006 6:53 pm (#894 of 1629)
I don't know Annie, I was thinking almost the same thing as you the other day after reading Choices' post. As per the Lexicon, we don't know what DD's wand is, unless it has been revealed & the Lex hasn't been updated to it yet. So maybe not only is Fawkes tuned into Harry & LV's wands but DD's also? It makes sense to me at least.
Later, Deb
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 22, 2006 1:00 am (#895 of 1629)
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. ...' "
Just one other. (sigh)
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 22, 2006 8:51 am (#896 of 1629)
Choices, Annie, that is an interesting idea that perhaps the Fawkes's feathers in the wands have something to do with when Fawkes decides to show up. In OotP Voldemort is about to AK Dumbledore using his Fawkes's feather wand when Fawkes shows up. In CoS Fawkes shows up only after Harry expresses his loyalty to Dumbledore, and Diary Tom is busy holding Harry's Fawkes's feather wand. So, maybe it's whenever Fawkes's feathers might be used to harm Dumbledore that Fawkes "senses a disturbance in the Force" (to use a hokey movie phrase), and springs into action. That would certainly explain why Fawkes doesn't show up at other opportune times, like in the Cave when Dumbledore could have used quick transportation back to Hogwarts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DJ Evans - Nov 22, 2006 11:05 am (#897 of 1629)
Laura: 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. ...' "
Do we know for sure that DD got his wand from Mr. Ollivander? With DD being over 150 years old, Mr. Ollivander might not have been around at that time & DD could have gotten it from someone else maybe. Or that DD had it specially made from someone other than Mr. Ollivander. I'm just throwing other possibilities out there. I'm not dead set on this, just thought it was a very interesting theory of a connection between DD, Harry & LV's wands & when Fawkes shows up in the series.
Later, Deb
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 22, 2006 5:44 pm (#898 of 1629)
Ollivander's fine wands have been around since 382 B.C. :-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 24, 2006 4:04 pm (#899 of 1629)
I was going to say something similar, Choices. I suspect Ollivander is pretty darned old. (You aren't implying that the present Mr Ollivander has been around since 382 B.C, right?)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 24, 2006 5:45 pm (#900 of 1629)
No, not him personally, but the family. :-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 17, 2006 12:50 pm (#876 of 1629)
Die, I think that is an entirely plausible idea. I could very well be that Dumbledore sent Fawkes, or as T Vrana said, it could have been Fawkes responding to Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 17, 2006 12:55 pm (#877 of 1629)
die & choices- The only problem I have is that DD tells Harry Fawkes came to him because he showed great loyalty. So, if DD sent Fawkes, then he would not have done so if Harry had not shown him great loyalty? He would have let him perish? It seems that there was more going on than DD sending Fawkes to the rescue, a subtle magic, that taps the connection between DD & Fawkes, and Harry & DD.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
shadzar - Nov 17, 2006 11:48 pm (#878 of 1629)
Sorry for my absence, ben busy helping someone with a website setup...
So Fawkes may yet come to Harry's aid. Seems very obvious, but what would Fawkes bring this time. DD is no longer in the school, and Fawkes left the school. DD belongings got moved where? Fawkes isn't hampered by the windows and doors of the school, and can travel to where ever Harry and the gang are at any time, possibly following Hedwig. Could Aberforth be storing something crucial that only Fawkes or DD could get to that Harry will need?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 18, 2006 1:16 am (#879 of 1629)
I never got the impression that DD sent Fawkes to Harry in the Chamber. He says to Harry on p.244 (Cdn): "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you."
Called Fawkes to you. As in, the strength of Harry's loyalty to DD is what summoned Fawkes to him. Like the phoenix has some internal sense of who is one hundred per cent loyal to DD. It just doesn't sound like DD - or anyone else - *sent* Fawkes to help Harry.
Also, look at the second time Fawkes came to Harry unbidden. The graveyard scene in GoF, when Harry was taking on Dumbledore's greatest enemy. The Phoenix song told Harry not to break the wand connection: the only way he could hope to survive in the duel against V. There is no way Dumbledore could have sent Fawkes to Harry in that case because DD did not know where Harry was or what he was going through. On p.603 (Cdn) of GoF he explicitly says, "I need to know what happened after you touched the Portkey in the maze, Harry." He hears the whole story from Harry, puts it together with what Barty Jr. said, and comes to the conclusion that Harry is telling the truth about all that occurred in the graveyard. But he needed to hear Harry's account of the event first. Therefore, Fawkes went to Harry on his own accord.
In other words, I agree with what T. Vrana wrote in the following quote: " On the 'loyalty detector', perhaps Fawkes can sense the complete loyalty Harry has for DD and responds by bringing the hat and sword. It is the level of Harry's loyalty that brought him. So others may not be evil or traitorous (Slughorn, for instance), and still not reach the same threshold as Harry, complete and utter loyalty, DD's man through and through. In other words, Fawkes isn't so much detecting loyal vs. traitor. He's detecting complete devotion, and only that could bring him.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 18, 2006 5:59 am (#880 of 1629)
T Vrana's explanation works for me. But Fawkes also shows up with the Hat. How did he know to bring that? And Fawkes drops the diary into Harry's lap. What's up with that? That bird seems to know an awful lot that doesn't have anything to do with detecting loyalty.
(Laura, I never got the impression Fawkes went to the graveyard in GoF. It seemed to me that the Phoenix Song was an FX produced by the wands linking.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 18, 2006 6:13 am (#881 of 1629)
Ok, then. Let's say he was there in spirit. (grin)
But it was Harry fighting Dumbledore's greatest enemy possibly to the death that summoned the song - and spirit - of DD's bird to him. *Sort of* the same thing, eh? Same principle anyway. ... Fawkes to the rescue!
And then, when Harry was in the Headmaster's office telling his story, the phoenix instinctively flew over to the boy to comfort him ("There was something comforting about his warm weight.") and heal his wounded leg.
Awww ...
Laura
I could be wrong about this, though.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 18, 2006 6:48 am (#882 of 1629)
M Brisbee- Rather clever pet goes with the rather clever DD.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 18, 2006 10:14 am (#883 of 1629)
Perhaps that is one of the "side-effects" planned by the one (Dumbledore) who commissioned the making of the phoenix feather core wands. Fawkes would encourage and help Harry and he would strike fear and apprehension in Voldemort. Just a thought.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 19, 2006 5:26 pm (#884 of 1629)
I'm not saying, to clarify, that Dumbledore specifically told Fawkes to watch Harry while he was gone that night. That doesn't fit with Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore being the thing that calls Fawkes to him. But Dumbledore could certainly have told Fawkes at some point before that to keep an eye on Harry. Fawkes would not have HAD to go to HELP Harry, if he felt Harry was not being trustworthy. Because Harry did have such loyalty to Dumbledore, Fawkes physically came bringing him what he needed.
I never thought the phoenix song was Fawkes himself helping Harry in the graveyard. Only that he heard what would be most comforting to him. Like a boggart shows you what frightened you most, I think the wand gave Harry something that would comfort him the most...phoenix song.
But none of this explains why Fawkes was so totally absent when Dumbledore was on the tower, and Harry was trying so desperately to free himself and stop what was happening. I think Dumbledore had to have died because he knew it was necessary, and that he accepted it. If he did, Fawkes had to. That phoenix has probably been around for ages, and has seen many masters. He knows mortals are, well, mortal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 19, 2006 6:36 pm (#885 of 1629)
I think somewhere it says DD is the only known wizard to tame a phoenix and keep it as a pet...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.E. Jones - Nov 19, 2006 11:51 pm (#886 of 1629)
--That phoenix has probably been around for ages, and has seen many masters.—
JKR has said Fawkes only ever belonged to Dumbledore.
Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005 (underline mine):
Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround - Who did Fawkes previously belong to and will he play a vital role in the next book?
JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next book, which probably gives you a big clue, and he has never been owned by anyone but Dumbledore. You will notice that when Harry goes back in the Pensieve in this book, Fawkes is never there, and no, I am sorry, not in this book, I take that back. When Harry has previously seen the study with a different headmaster he saw it with Dippet and Fawkes was not there then. Fawkes is Dumbledore's possession, not a Hogwarts possession.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 20, 2006 6:18 am (#887 of 1629)
Thanks for the quote. As I see it, though, even if Fawkes had never had another master, a phoenix probably knows that it is natural for wizards, unlike phoenixes, to come to the end of their lives, and unnatural for them to strive for immortality, like Riddle did. He might be able to accept that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 20, 2006 8:12 am (#888 of 1629)
So are we accepting that Fawkes is smarter than the average bear? Seems reasonable to me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 20, 2006 12:24 pm (#889 of 1629)
I think we could get back to the basic question of the Fawkes problem.
Since Fawkes didn't show up at the tower, does that strongly imply that DD particularly wanted him to stay away?
Fawkes seems to know, without being told, that Harry needs him in COS. He seems to know, without being told, exactly when DD needs him at the end of OOTP.
Since Fawkes appears to be able to act on his own -- without a command from DD (although he does follow DD's commands) -- we have to wonder not only why DD didn't call Fawkes to the tower, but why Fawkes didn't come on his own.
The fact that Fawkes did not come to the tower, even though he must have known that DD was in a crisis situation, seems to me to strongly imply that DD had either previously, or while on the tower, somehow communicated to Fawkes that he should not come to help.
While it may be possible that DD could communicate with Fawkes while talking to Draco, it does seem unlikely.
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 Fawke's rescue.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 20, 2006 12:44 pm (#890 of 1629)
He seems to know, without being told, exactly when DD needs him at the end of OOTP.
Since Fawkes appears to be able to act on his own -- without a command from DD (although he does follow DD's commands) -- we have to wonder not only why DD didn't call Fawkes to the tower, but why Fawkes didn't come on his own.
I have to disagree that Fawkes knew, without being told (or summoned), that DD needed him at exactly the moment he appeared in the MoM. At that moment DD was under two threats, but seemed unconcerned. If DD had not summoned Fawkes, and if he did not know he would swallow the AK, how did he know he only had to deal with the snake? It seems to me that DD can multi-task and was controlling the statues, summoning Fawkes and advising him what he needed him to do, and dealing with LV's serpent.
The alternative leaves too much room for error. In battle a leader is needed so that there is no confusion. I don't think Fawkes was acting on his own.
I do agree that DD did not want Fawkes to 'save' him that night, and I have to wonder why Harry isn't asking where FAwkes was.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 20, 2006 5:38 pm (#891 of 1629)
The above should say "I do agree that DD did not want Fawkes to 'save' him that night on the Tower...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 21, 2006 8:51 am (#892 of 1629)
Edited by Nov 21, 2006 8:52 am
Choices, I agree that somehow the fact that Fawkes' feathers were used in both Harry's and LV's wand plays into why he shows up at certain times. He has shown up when Harry and LV are about to be in combat of some sort or another. In SS he doesn't show up maybe because LV was using Quirrel as host. In COS LV is more powerful and Fawkes comes to Harry's aid. In PoA there is no direct Harry/LV battle. In GoF Fawkes comes to Harry's aid via his song when the wands are connected. In OotP he comes to the MoM when LV threatens to harm Harry. In HBP there is no battle between LV and Harry. Do you see what I mean? Maybe DD never summoned Fawkes at all. Maybe he came because the wands that carry his tail feathers were about to battle. Then the fact that Fawkes didn't go to the tower isn't because DD told him to stay away but because Harry and LV were not in combat.
Only had a quick minute before dashing. Hope I made sense.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 21, 2006 9:25 am (#893 of 1629)
But Harry was not about to do battle in the MOM, not when Fawkes arrived. Harry was off to the side and an AK was heading for DD. Fawkes protected DD by swallowing the AK.
Harry was standing earlier with his wand pointed at the floor when LV sent the AK at Harry. No Fawkes to the rescue, DD charmed the statue to take the AK.
Soooo..I don't think the idea really works...sorry..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DJ Evans - Nov 21, 2006 6:53 pm (#894 of 1629)
I don't know Annie, I was thinking almost the same thing as you the other day after reading Choices' post. As per the Lexicon, we don't know what DD's wand is, unless it has been revealed & the Lex hasn't been updated to it yet. So maybe not only is Fawkes tuned into Harry & LV's wands but DD's also? It makes sense to me at least.
Later, Deb
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 22, 2006 1:00 am (#895 of 1629)
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. ...' "
Just one other. (sigh)
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 22, 2006 8:51 am (#896 of 1629)
Choices, Annie, that is an interesting idea that perhaps the Fawkes's feathers in the wands have something to do with when Fawkes decides to show up. In OotP Voldemort is about to AK Dumbledore using his Fawkes's feather wand when Fawkes shows up. In CoS Fawkes shows up only after Harry expresses his loyalty to Dumbledore, and Diary Tom is busy holding Harry's Fawkes's feather wand. So, maybe it's whenever Fawkes's feathers might be used to harm Dumbledore that Fawkes "senses a disturbance in the Force" (to use a hokey movie phrase), and springs into action. That would certainly explain why Fawkes doesn't show up at other opportune times, like in the Cave when Dumbledore could have used quick transportation back to Hogwarts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DJ Evans - Nov 22, 2006 11:05 am (#897 of 1629)
Laura: 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. ...' "
Do we know for sure that DD got his wand from Mr. Ollivander? With DD being over 150 years old, Mr. Ollivander might not have been around at that time & DD could have gotten it from someone else maybe. Or that DD had it specially made from someone other than Mr. Ollivander. I'm just throwing other possibilities out there. I'm not dead set on this, just thought it was a very interesting theory of a connection between DD, Harry & LV's wands & when Fawkes shows up in the series.
Later, Deb
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 22, 2006 5:44 pm (#898 of 1629)
Ollivander's fine wands have been around since 382 B.C. :-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 24, 2006 4:04 pm (#899 of 1629)
I was going to say something similar, Choices. I suspect Ollivander is pretty darned old. (You aren't implying that the present Mr Ollivander has been around since 382 B.C, right?)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 24, 2006 5:45 pm (#900 of 1629)
No, not him personally, but the family. :-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 901 to 925
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:25 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 24, 2006 8:35 pm (#901 of 1629)
So how many wands does that make? And Ollivander remembers every wand he ever sold? Yeah ok, what that, like 1 billion?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 24, 2006 9:22 pm (#902 of 1629)
I definitely see it as a business that has been passed down from parent to offspring for a long time. Maybe wand making is something that is in your blood in the wizrding world.
If we actually knew how long THAT Ollivander had been personally making wands, not just the family, or at least how long he worked in the shop, we'd have more to go on. I expect he's quite old, though. At least as old as McGonagall, if not as old as Dumbledore. I DON'T see him being as old as Marchbanks, though. He seemed more spry than that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 25, 2006 10:48 am (#903 of 1629)
So how many wands does that make? And Ollivander remembers every wand he ever sold? Yeah ok, what that, like 1 billion?
Well, he says he does, Thom. ("I remember every wand I ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand." - PS) I guess it depends on whether you believe him on that - or if you think he's just bragging. (grin)
Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to believe him. Perhaps he has some kind of special magical power which gives him this ability to keep in his head the particulars of every wand he ever sold over all those years. Remember those pale, silvery, creepy-looking eyes of his. (hee, hee)
And then there's his mysterious disappearance in the summer between Harry's fifth and sixth year.
Maybe somebody on one or the other side of the war knows how valuable this man's incredible wand-memory is, and kidnapped him in the hope that they can get this knowledge from him and use it to their advantage in some way. If that is what happened, it gives credence to the idea that a) Ollivander *does* remember every wand he sold and b) that Fawkes really did give up *only* two of his feathers to be wand cores (as Ollivander said). Following from there, it would also mean that c) DD's wand core is not phoenix feather.
Ok, I'm just guessing here.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 25, 2006 2:57 pm (#904 of 1629)
Hi everyone, while I was away I became more convinced that somehow Fawkes' feathers play into his appearances or lack thereof. I see I'm not entirely alone in that thought which makes me happy:) Of course does this get us any closer to really understanding what when on the tower? Somehow I think it matters. Probably shouldn't post until I have my thoughts organized.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 25, 2006 3:57 pm (#905 of 1629)
Laura, of course you are right, as I believe the same, especially after the disappearance/kidnapping. But, I had this thought about the number of wands that he and his family have made since the beginning. Roughly 2200 years. If he sells 500 per year that would be 1.1 million wands. That is a fair few by any stretch, and , a lot to remember.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 25, 2006 8:44 pm (#906 of 1629)
I don't think he sells that many. There aren't that many wizards going to Hogwarts every year, or that break their wands and need new ones. But I desperately wish that this line of reasoning could be moved over to an Ollivander thread. I personally think we're getting off topic in regards to Dumbledore's death, and I doubt if an Ollivander thread moves nearly as fast as this one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 26, 2006 5:48 am (#907 of 1629)
I doubt Ollivander is older than DD, and he would not have begun making wands until he left Hogwarts I expect. So while he says he only made two wands with Fawkes tail feathers, it does not mean DD's wand can't have a Fawkes feather core.
I still have to think DD was in control in the MoM and wasn't just waiting for Fawkes to save the day. DD had an AK and a snake coming at him, but he never flinches, he calmly focuses on the snake while Fawkes devours the AK. How did DD know he shouldn't disapparate again, as he did with the first AK LV sent his way? How did he know he could remain focused on the snake and the AK would be handled? Why didn't Fawkes appear when the first AK was sent?(DD disapparated) Or the second (missed hitting the security guard's desk)? Or the third (bounced off the statue, which shattered)? DD was controlling the statues, and, I think, Fawkes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 26, 2006 7:44 am (#908 of 1629)
I doubt Ollivander is older than DD, and he would not have begun making wands until he left Hogwarts I expect. So while he says he only made two wands with Fawkes tail feathers, it does not mean DD's wand can't have a Fawkes feather core. --T Vrana
I doubt Dumbledore's wand is Fawkes feather. No Priori Incantatum during the MoM battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort, for one.
It seems Dumbledore and Fawkes do have some sort of link. We don't know if it allows Dumbledore to call Fawkes to him or communicate over a great distance. We were trying to figure out why Fawkes pops up in certain circumstances, but not others. It is odd that Fawkes didn't show up on the Tower, or come to the Cave, given that he does for Harry in CoS and for Dumbledore in OotP. The situations where Fawkes does come have in common Tom Riddle; one or more Fawkes's feather wands; and Dumbledore, or Harry being loyal to Dumbledore. So I like the theory that it's a mixture of these elements. Maybe Fawkes doesn't like it when his feather is used for evil, and takes great exception to Tom Riddle when he opposes Dumbledore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 26, 2006 10:42 am (#909 of 1629)
'So while he says he only made two wands with Fawkes tail feathers, it does not mean DD's wand can't have a Fawkes feather core.' (T. Vrana)
Note the exact wording of what he said, T.
Ollivander did *not* say, "I only made two wands with the feathers from this particular phoenix." He said, "It just so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather - just one other." Major difference! Not, I only made two wands using these cores (ie - somebody else might have also done so); but, the bird gave ONLY two feathers in total. "just one other."
Again, as I said to Thom earlier, one can choose to believe Ollivander on this or not. I do. I think Jo was giving us this important and specific information when she had the old wand-maker tell Harry what he did in the way he did in PS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the logic in your last paragraph, Mrs. Brisbee.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
geauxtigers - Nov 26, 2006 11:20 am (#910 of 1629)
Going back a bit.... But none of this explains why Fawkes was so totally absent when Dumbledore was on the tower, and Harry was trying so desperately to free himself and stop what was happening. I think Dumbledore had to have died because he knew it was necessary, and that he accepted it. If he did, Fawkes had to. That phoenix has probably been around for ages, and has seen many masters. He knows mortals are, well, mortal.
I agree, this has been exactly what made me think from the start, that the tower scene was planned. Why is fawkes there some of the time and not all the time? I think DD can communicate with him, that seems to be the only logical explination if you ask me. Why didn't he show up at the tower? Because it was DD time to go onto the next great adventure and Fawkes knew it. This connection would be interesting to dicuss, but I think that should be moved to an appropriate thread, I don't want to start anything here.
Anyway, why/how did Fawkes know that it was DD's time? If we look at all the times that Fawkes has appeared; To Harry in the Chamber, when Harry is telling DD about the graveyard ect in GoF. In the MoM, Fawkes comes and saves DD. The Tower scene, he doesn't come. Its planned! Hes come everyother time when it wasn't planned. Dunno, it makes sense to me. That whole night was planned in more than one way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 26, 2006 11:20 am (#911 of 1629)
Die, that's because he does a land office business from catalogues, all over the world. Now before you ask me where I got that from, I made it up ‘cause it sounded fun. My first thought with the billions comment was McDonalds, and their sign and the arches, and it just took off from there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 26, 2006 12:12 pm (#912 of 1629)
Laura
”It just so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather - just one other.”
This was preceded by
“I remember every single wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand.”
So, I think, he is referring to all the wands he sold. He may or may not know what DD has for a core, or if over his eternal existence, Fawkes gave others before Ollivander was born or making wands. He does know for sure that the two in these two wands are from Fawkes. I'm not making any argument that DD's core is a Fawkes feather, but it can't be ruled out. Even DD may not know, unless Fawkes 'told' him. No idea if they can communicate in that way. But DD is only 150, Fawkes is eternal.
MRS Brisbee- DD and LV never tried cursing each other at the same time did they? It was more a give and take. But, again, I'm not convinced DD has a Fawkes feather.
We were trying to figure out why Fawkes pops up in certain circumstances, but not others. It is odd that Fawkes didn't show up on the Tower,
Understood, and I don't think it is odd, or a choice make by Fawkes.
I think DD can summon Fawkes when and if he needs and wants him. I don't think Fawkes is in control and chooses when to go to DD's aid. Again, why didn't Fawkes appear until the 4th AK was cast at DD? If Fawkes has a problem with LV casting spells at DD, why wait? He came on the fourth, I think, because DD needed him and summoned him, before the fourth DD disapparated (first AK), LV missed (second AK), and the statue, controlled by DD, took the third. On the fourth, DD had a snake and an AK to deal with. How did DD know Fawkes would take care of the AK and he could contend with the snake? I think DD was totally in control, and part of that included requesting Fawkes assistance.
Fawkes did not come to the tower, I believe, because DD did not want to be rescued. I see Fawkes absence as further evidence that DD had a plan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 26, 2006 1:08 pm (#913 of 1629)
T Vrana - "Fawkes did not come to the tower, I believe, because DD did not want to be rescued. I see Fawkes absense as further evidence that DD had a plan."
I totally agree. Had Dumbledore wanted Fawkes there, Fawkes would have been there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 26, 2006 7:53 pm (#914 of 1629)
Fawkes did not come to the tower, I believe, because DD did not want to be rescued.-- T Vrana
Maybe. But did Dumbledore not want to be rescued from the Cave, to be taken quickly to Hogwarts, either? Or Dumbledore could have summoned Fawkes the instant he and Harry arrived back in Hogsmeade, so he could get to the castle. I have to wonder if Dumbledore couldn't summon Fawkes for some reason.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 26, 2006 9:01 pm (#915 of 1629)
As regards DD not contacting Fawkes, DD could have communicated in a number of ways with others if he had desired it. If DD had wanted to he could have sent a patronus to request help from Snape, but he did not.
We learned at the beginning of HBP that a patronus can enter the Hogwarts gates and into the castle in order to reach the person for whom the message is intended. And a patronus would clearly be faster than sending Harry either all the way from Hogsmeade, or from the top of the tower all the way to the dungeons. Yet DD does not use the faster patronus.
DD was clearly working with plans in mind. He wanted to send Harry away from him, even when he was in Hogsmead before seeing the Dark Mark, which means he knew things were going to take place which he didn't want Harry to see.
And he didn't call for Fawkes and perhaps even had earlier communicated with Fawkes not to come to his aid.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 26, 2006 9:19 pm (#916 of 1629)
Dumbledore was too weak to even Apparate back on his own. Could this be the reason that he didn't use a Patronusgram? He was just too weak?
I find Patronusgrams to be irksome. I'm still trying to figure out why McGonagall didn't send one instead of Flitwick to fetch Snape! They are supposed to be a great means of communication, yet they are hardly used!
DD was clearly working with plans in mind. He wanted to send Harry away from him, even when he was in Hogsmeade before seeing the Dark Mark, which means he knew things were going to take place which he didn't want Harry to see. -- wynnleaf
That doesn't make sense. He tried to send Harry away to fetch Snape. When he saw the Dark Mark, he kept Harry with him, taking him up to the Tower! Then he tried to send Harry away again to fetch Snape. Then he froze Harry so he couldn't so anything, including leave. Sounds like a lot of mind changing to me, instead of a set plan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Nov 27, 2006 4:30 am (#917 of 1629)
Fawkes could have been a baby bird in a pile of ashes at the time. We need more information before we can make a reasonable conclusion, This is, however, one more puzzle about the event that needs explaining.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2006 5:15 am (#918 of 1629)
Mrs Brisbee,
Where are we told that DD was too weak to apparate? You can't apparate from Hogsmeade to within the Hogwarts grounds anyway. And notice that DD was not too weak to outfly Harry going to the castle, nor too weak to take down the spells so that he could get into the tower while out-flying Harry.
That doesn't make sense. He tried to send Harry away to fetch Snape. When he saw the Dark Mark, he kept Harry with him, taking him up to the Tower! Then he tried to send Harry away again to fetch Snape. Then he froze Harry so he couldn't so anything, including leave. Sounds like a lot of mind changing to me, instead of a set plan.
The way I read it, DD wanted Harry to go to Snape, and for Snape to come to meet him (DD) without Harry. I think that was the original plan. I think that he probably did not want Harry to return, even though he did not say that to Harry. However, once he saw the Dark Mark already over the castle DD had to go on immediately to the castle and then continue with his plans to send Harry to Snape. Once on the tower, he again attempted to send Harry, but Draco was already coming up the steps.
Yes, I think DD was working from a plan. But I think that DD's plan went awry because events at the castle moved more quickly than he expected. I think he originally thought he'd have time to send Harry to Snape, who would make sure Harry didn't go anywhere afterward, prior to meeting up with Draco on the tower.
Note that Snape knew exactly where to go after Flitwick alerted him that DE's were in the castle. It would be imperative that Snape find DD and Draco (if for nothing else, because of the vow). Yet he doesn't learn to go to the tower from Flitwick (who wouldn't know about DD on the tower), or from any other Order members, staff, students, or DE's. He doesn't stop to talk to anyone. Tonks says one moment she saw him enter and the next he was up the stairs to the tower. In other words, he knew that DD and Draco would be on the top of the tower and he went directly there without hesitation. I think DD and Snape knew that was where events would play out. My guess is that while Snape couldn't get Draco to tell him his plans, he may have learned some of the plans from another DE who planned to be there. The other DE's didn't seem surprised to see Snape.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Nov 27, 2006 6:03 am (#919 of 1629)
Dumbledore needed Harry to apparate him from the cave to Hogsmeade.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Nov 27, 2006 6:13 am (#920 of 1629)
My guess is that while Snape couldn't get Draco to tell him his plans, he may have learned some of the plans from another DE who planned to be there. The other DE's didn't seem surprised to see Snape. --- wynnleaf
From the way I read the scene I think it's reasonable to assume that the Death Eaters were working from a different plan than Draco. It hadn't occurred to me (and it should have) that Snape would know things from the other Death Eaters he couldn't get from Draco.
This scene is so confusing I'm still waiting for an explanation that says "This is the only way it could have happened." I suspect the only one of those I'll get is Rowling's in book 7.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2006 7:21 am (#921 of 1629)
Thanks, Steve, for reminding me that DD got Harry to apparate them to Hogsmeade.
However, since DD was quite strong enough to fly on a broom and re-arrange the spells on Hogwarts at the same time, I think he'd have been strong enough to send a patronus. After all, we're not talking about such a powerful patronus to fight off hundreds of dementors -- or even one. He'd only need to send a message.
Yet he didn't send the faster patronus to Snape, but instead tried to send Harry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 27, 2006 8:45 am (#922 of 1629)
Thank you, Steve. That is what I meant, that Dumbledore was too weak to Apparate from the Cave to Hogsmeade.
The way I read it, DD wanted Harry to go to Snape, and for Snape to come to meet him (DD) without Harry. I think that was the original plan. –wynnleaf
I agree. Because of his expertise in the Dark Arts, Snape was able to aid Dumbledore when he had been injured getting the Gaunt Ring Horcrux. Now Dumbledore is again injured while trying to get another Horcrux. So he wants Snape.
Then the Dark Mark appears. Usually the Dark Mark is only cast over a spot where a murder has occurred. So, adrenaline rush for Dumbledore. Dumbledore flies with Harry to the Tower, and he is able to counter the spells he himself put up to prevent flying into Hogwarts. Now he has a different plan, which doesn't involve Snape. With the adrenaline rush, I agree at that point Dumbledore could do magic. But he doesn't send a Patronusgram to Snape because now his interest is getting to the Tower, not getting Snape. What would he expect to find on the Tower? Someone dead, most likely. Or perhaps Order members. Maybe Draco. Possibly Snape, if Snape is following Draco around, but not Snape alone. Dumbledore himself said he never expected Death Eaters to make it into the castle, so he's not expecting an army of Death Eaters.
No one is on the Tower. There are no sounds of the battle from below. Dumbledore crashes down from his adrenaline rush. He switches back to Plan A, and tries to send Harry to get Snape. He obviously doesn't know about the battle raging on the floor below.
Harry and Dumbledore hear one person --one!-- running up the stairs. Dumbledore chooses to freeze Harry rather than the person coming through the door. We seem to be off the Go Get Snape plan again, and maybe back to Plan B, or onto Plan C. Dumbledore might be acting on some plan at this point, but it doesn't involve Snape.
Wynnleaf, that is a good point that Snape could learn information from other DEs besides Draco. But the plan to send up the Dark Mark over the Astronomy Tower was only hatched within the RoR after all the Death Eaters had come through. I don't think it was too difficult for Snape to figure out he had to go up to the 7th floor. That's where the RoR is, and I do think Snape was thinking Draco was involved. How hard would it be to follow the sounds of battle once there? Portraits would have been awakened by the commotion, and could point him in the right direction. All he'd have to see is one of the Good Guys or spell bounce off the barrier on the stairs to know something was up. I don't see any evidence that Snape had prior knowledge about the Tower. He may well have had a plan to locate Draco, though.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Nov 27, 2006 9:23 am (#923 of 1629)
. . . since DD was quite strong enough to fly on a broom and re-arrange the spells on Hogwarts at the same time
wynnleaf, this is what bothers me. Why the restoration of powers when he leaves the cave? Has he had time to recover? Just wanted to give Harry a morale boost? The cave was somehow weakening him? There is something about Hogsmeade that strengthens him?
While I like the last, since it might indicate why Aberforth lives in Hogsmeade, I see no evidence to particularly support any one of them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 27, 2006 9:38 am (#924 of 1629)
Do we think that Snape was anticipating Draco would make his attempt on DD that particular night? Why wouldn't Snape stay hot on Draco's tale? If he were to fail to keep Draco safe and if Draco tried and failed to kill DD, Snape would die. Did Snape know tonight was the night? We've speculated that Dumbledore's mistake was thinking he had more time than he did. What if he was off not just an hour or two, but by a whole day? If Snape was in on a plan with DD, that would explain why he was sitting in his office, rather than stalking Draco. He didn't know Draco was making his move that night. It's also why he streaked out of his office like a bat out of hell when Flitwick told him what was going on. He needed to get to Draco before Draco screwed anything up. Perhaps Draco let Snape know his plans but didn't tell him when he'd take action, or he tricked Snape. Draco no longer trusted Snape.
I'm sorry if this aspect has been discussed already and I missed it (or simply forgot). You know how it is when you think you've discovered a new idea.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 27, 2006 9:53 am (#925 of 1629)
Fawkes could have been a baby bird in a pile of ashes at the time.
While possible, I think unlikely. The Phoenix lament was quite powerful, could the baby phoenix do this?
As for Fawkes coming to DD's aid in the cave. DD didn't need him, he had Harry. In the MoM, DD only summoned Fawkes on the 4th AK when he really needed him. On the tower, it would appear he really needed him, but no Fawkes. I have to think this is by DD's choice.
Can't recall who said it, but the Dark Mark being cast over the tower, this being decided in the RoR? Lupin guesses this, but we do not know how Lupin would know this. Thought it was a weird thing for him to say.
journeymom-
The only problem I have with your thought is that I think Malfoy planned to act when DD was out of the castle. Does he leave every day? I think Malfoy had a plan and DEs standing by on alert from the moment he fixed the cabinet, then DD left the castle and he brought the DEs in.
Thom Matheson - Nov 24, 2006 8:35 pm (#901 of 1629)
So how many wands does that make? And Ollivander remembers every wand he ever sold? Yeah ok, what that, like 1 billion?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 24, 2006 9:22 pm (#902 of 1629)
I definitely see it as a business that has been passed down from parent to offspring for a long time. Maybe wand making is something that is in your blood in the wizrding world.
If we actually knew how long THAT Ollivander had been personally making wands, not just the family, or at least how long he worked in the shop, we'd have more to go on. I expect he's quite old, though. At least as old as McGonagall, if not as old as Dumbledore. I DON'T see him being as old as Marchbanks, though. He seemed more spry than that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 25, 2006 10:48 am (#903 of 1629)
So how many wands does that make? And Ollivander remembers every wand he ever sold? Yeah ok, what that, like 1 billion?
Well, he says he does, Thom. ("I remember every wand I ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand." - PS) I guess it depends on whether you believe him on that - or if you think he's just bragging. (grin)
Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to believe him. Perhaps he has some kind of special magical power which gives him this ability to keep in his head the particulars of every wand he ever sold over all those years. Remember those pale, silvery, creepy-looking eyes of his. (hee, hee)
And then there's his mysterious disappearance in the summer between Harry's fifth and sixth year.
Maybe somebody on one or the other side of the war knows how valuable this man's incredible wand-memory is, and kidnapped him in the hope that they can get this knowledge from him and use it to their advantage in some way. If that is what happened, it gives credence to the idea that a) Ollivander *does* remember every wand he sold and b) that Fawkes really did give up *only* two of his feathers to be wand cores (as Ollivander said). Following from there, it would also mean that c) DD's wand core is not phoenix feather.
Ok, I'm just guessing here.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annie Infante - Nov 25, 2006 2:57 pm (#904 of 1629)
Hi everyone, while I was away I became more convinced that somehow Fawkes' feathers play into his appearances or lack thereof. I see I'm not entirely alone in that thought which makes me happy:) Of course does this get us any closer to really understanding what when on the tower? Somehow I think it matters. Probably shouldn't post until I have my thoughts organized.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 25, 2006 3:57 pm (#905 of 1629)
Laura, of course you are right, as I believe the same, especially after the disappearance/kidnapping. But, I had this thought about the number of wands that he and his family have made since the beginning. Roughly 2200 years. If he sells 500 per year that would be 1.1 million wands. That is a fair few by any stretch, and , a lot to remember.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 25, 2006 8:44 pm (#906 of 1629)
I don't think he sells that many. There aren't that many wizards going to Hogwarts every year, or that break their wands and need new ones. But I desperately wish that this line of reasoning could be moved over to an Ollivander thread. I personally think we're getting off topic in regards to Dumbledore's death, and I doubt if an Ollivander thread moves nearly as fast as this one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 26, 2006 5:48 am (#907 of 1629)
I doubt Ollivander is older than DD, and he would not have begun making wands until he left Hogwarts I expect. So while he says he only made two wands with Fawkes tail feathers, it does not mean DD's wand can't have a Fawkes feather core.
I still have to think DD was in control in the MoM and wasn't just waiting for Fawkes to save the day. DD had an AK and a snake coming at him, but he never flinches, he calmly focuses on the snake while Fawkes devours the AK. How did DD know he shouldn't disapparate again, as he did with the first AK LV sent his way? How did he know he could remain focused on the snake and the AK would be handled? Why didn't Fawkes appear when the first AK was sent?(DD disapparated) Or the second (missed hitting the security guard's desk)? Or the third (bounced off the statue, which shattered)? DD was controlling the statues, and, I think, Fawkes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 26, 2006 7:44 am (#908 of 1629)
I doubt Ollivander is older than DD, and he would not have begun making wands until he left Hogwarts I expect. So while he says he only made two wands with Fawkes tail feathers, it does not mean DD's wand can't have a Fawkes feather core. --T Vrana
I doubt Dumbledore's wand is Fawkes feather. No Priori Incantatum during the MoM battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort, for one.
It seems Dumbledore and Fawkes do have some sort of link. We don't know if it allows Dumbledore to call Fawkes to him or communicate over a great distance. We were trying to figure out why Fawkes pops up in certain circumstances, but not others. It is odd that Fawkes didn't show up on the Tower, or come to the Cave, given that he does for Harry in CoS and for Dumbledore in OotP. The situations where Fawkes does come have in common Tom Riddle; one or more Fawkes's feather wands; and Dumbledore, or Harry being loyal to Dumbledore. So I like the theory that it's a mixture of these elements. Maybe Fawkes doesn't like it when his feather is used for evil, and takes great exception to Tom Riddle when he opposes Dumbledore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 26, 2006 10:42 am (#909 of 1629)
'So while he says he only made two wands with Fawkes tail feathers, it does not mean DD's wand can't have a Fawkes feather core.' (T. Vrana)
Note the exact wording of what he said, T.
Ollivander did *not* say, "I only made two wands with the feathers from this particular phoenix." He said, "It just so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather - just one other." Major difference! Not, I only made two wands using these cores (ie - somebody else might have also done so); but, the bird gave ONLY two feathers in total. "just one other."
Again, as I said to Thom earlier, one can choose to believe Ollivander on this or not. I do. I think Jo was giving us this important and specific information when she had the old wand-maker tell Harry what he did in the way he did in PS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the logic in your last paragraph, Mrs. Brisbee.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
geauxtigers - Nov 26, 2006 11:20 am (#910 of 1629)
Going back a bit.... But none of this explains why Fawkes was so totally absent when Dumbledore was on the tower, and Harry was trying so desperately to free himself and stop what was happening. I think Dumbledore had to have died because he knew it was necessary, and that he accepted it. If he did, Fawkes had to. That phoenix has probably been around for ages, and has seen many masters. He knows mortals are, well, mortal.
I agree, this has been exactly what made me think from the start, that the tower scene was planned. Why is fawkes there some of the time and not all the time? I think DD can communicate with him, that seems to be the only logical explination if you ask me. Why didn't he show up at the tower? Because it was DD time to go onto the next great adventure and Fawkes knew it. This connection would be interesting to dicuss, but I think that should be moved to an appropriate thread, I don't want to start anything here.
Anyway, why/how did Fawkes know that it was DD's time? If we look at all the times that Fawkes has appeared; To Harry in the Chamber, when Harry is telling DD about the graveyard ect in GoF. In the MoM, Fawkes comes and saves DD. The Tower scene, he doesn't come. Its planned! Hes come everyother time when it wasn't planned. Dunno, it makes sense to me. That whole night was planned in more than one way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Nov 26, 2006 11:20 am (#911 of 1629)
Die, that's because he does a land office business from catalogues, all over the world. Now before you ask me where I got that from, I made it up ‘cause it sounded fun. My first thought with the billions comment was McDonalds, and their sign and the arches, and it just took off from there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 26, 2006 12:12 pm (#912 of 1629)
Laura
”It just so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather - just one other.”
This was preceded by
“I remember every single wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand.”
So, I think, he is referring to all the wands he sold. He may or may not know what DD has for a core, or if over his eternal existence, Fawkes gave others before Ollivander was born or making wands. He does know for sure that the two in these two wands are from Fawkes. I'm not making any argument that DD's core is a Fawkes feather, but it can't be ruled out. Even DD may not know, unless Fawkes 'told' him. No idea if they can communicate in that way. But DD is only 150, Fawkes is eternal.
MRS Brisbee- DD and LV never tried cursing each other at the same time did they? It was more a give and take. But, again, I'm not convinced DD has a Fawkes feather.
We were trying to figure out why Fawkes pops up in certain circumstances, but not others. It is odd that Fawkes didn't show up on the Tower,
Understood, and I don't think it is odd, or a choice make by Fawkes.
I think DD can summon Fawkes when and if he needs and wants him. I don't think Fawkes is in control and chooses when to go to DD's aid. Again, why didn't Fawkes appear until the 4th AK was cast at DD? If Fawkes has a problem with LV casting spells at DD, why wait? He came on the fourth, I think, because DD needed him and summoned him, before the fourth DD disapparated (first AK), LV missed (second AK), and the statue, controlled by DD, took the third. On the fourth, DD had a snake and an AK to deal with. How did DD know Fawkes would take care of the AK and he could contend with the snake? I think DD was totally in control, and part of that included requesting Fawkes assistance.
Fawkes did not come to the tower, I believe, because DD did not want to be rescued. I see Fawkes absence as further evidence that DD had a plan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 26, 2006 1:08 pm (#913 of 1629)
T Vrana - "Fawkes did not come to the tower, I believe, because DD did not want to be rescued. I see Fawkes absense as further evidence that DD had a plan."
I totally agree. Had Dumbledore wanted Fawkes there, Fawkes would have been there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 26, 2006 7:53 pm (#914 of 1629)
Fawkes did not come to the tower, I believe, because DD did not want to be rescued.-- T Vrana
Maybe. But did Dumbledore not want to be rescued from the Cave, to be taken quickly to Hogwarts, either? Or Dumbledore could have summoned Fawkes the instant he and Harry arrived back in Hogsmeade, so he could get to the castle. I have to wonder if Dumbledore couldn't summon Fawkes for some reason.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 26, 2006 9:01 pm (#915 of 1629)
As regards DD not contacting Fawkes, DD could have communicated in a number of ways with others if he had desired it. If DD had wanted to he could have sent a patronus to request help from Snape, but he did not.
We learned at the beginning of HBP that a patronus can enter the Hogwarts gates and into the castle in order to reach the person for whom the message is intended. And a patronus would clearly be faster than sending Harry either all the way from Hogsmeade, or from the top of the tower all the way to the dungeons. Yet DD does not use the faster patronus.
DD was clearly working with plans in mind. He wanted to send Harry away from him, even when he was in Hogsmead before seeing the Dark Mark, which means he knew things were going to take place which he didn't want Harry to see.
And he didn't call for Fawkes and perhaps even had earlier communicated with Fawkes not to come to his aid.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 26, 2006 9:19 pm (#916 of 1629)
Dumbledore was too weak to even Apparate back on his own. Could this be the reason that he didn't use a Patronusgram? He was just too weak?
I find Patronusgrams to be irksome. I'm still trying to figure out why McGonagall didn't send one instead of Flitwick to fetch Snape! They are supposed to be a great means of communication, yet they are hardly used!
DD was clearly working with plans in mind. He wanted to send Harry away from him, even when he was in Hogsmeade before seeing the Dark Mark, which means he knew things were going to take place which he didn't want Harry to see. -- wynnleaf
That doesn't make sense. He tried to send Harry away to fetch Snape. When he saw the Dark Mark, he kept Harry with him, taking him up to the Tower! Then he tried to send Harry away again to fetch Snape. Then he froze Harry so he couldn't so anything, including leave. Sounds like a lot of mind changing to me, instead of a set plan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Nov 27, 2006 4:30 am (#917 of 1629)
Fawkes could have been a baby bird in a pile of ashes at the time. We need more information before we can make a reasonable conclusion, This is, however, one more puzzle about the event that needs explaining.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2006 5:15 am (#918 of 1629)
Mrs Brisbee,
Where are we told that DD was too weak to apparate? You can't apparate from Hogsmeade to within the Hogwarts grounds anyway. And notice that DD was not too weak to outfly Harry going to the castle, nor too weak to take down the spells so that he could get into the tower while out-flying Harry.
That doesn't make sense. He tried to send Harry away to fetch Snape. When he saw the Dark Mark, he kept Harry with him, taking him up to the Tower! Then he tried to send Harry away again to fetch Snape. Then he froze Harry so he couldn't so anything, including leave. Sounds like a lot of mind changing to me, instead of a set plan.
The way I read it, DD wanted Harry to go to Snape, and for Snape to come to meet him (DD) without Harry. I think that was the original plan. I think that he probably did not want Harry to return, even though he did not say that to Harry. However, once he saw the Dark Mark already over the castle DD had to go on immediately to the castle and then continue with his plans to send Harry to Snape. Once on the tower, he again attempted to send Harry, but Draco was already coming up the steps.
Yes, I think DD was working from a plan. But I think that DD's plan went awry because events at the castle moved more quickly than he expected. I think he originally thought he'd have time to send Harry to Snape, who would make sure Harry didn't go anywhere afterward, prior to meeting up with Draco on the tower.
Note that Snape knew exactly where to go after Flitwick alerted him that DE's were in the castle. It would be imperative that Snape find DD and Draco (if for nothing else, because of the vow). Yet he doesn't learn to go to the tower from Flitwick (who wouldn't know about DD on the tower), or from any other Order members, staff, students, or DE's. He doesn't stop to talk to anyone. Tonks says one moment she saw him enter and the next he was up the stairs to the tower. In other words, he knew that DD and Draco would be on the top of the tower and he went directly there without hesitation. I think DD and Snape knew that was where events would play out. My guess is that while Snape couldn't get Draco to tell him his plans, he may have learned some of the plans from another DE who planned to be there. The other DE's didn't seem surprised to see Snape.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Nov 27, 2006 6:03 am (#919 of 1629)
Dumbledore needed Harry to apparate him from the cave to Hogsmeade.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Nov 27, 2006 6:13 am (#920 of 1629)
My guess is that while Snape couldn't get Draco to tell him his plans, he may have learned some of the plans from another DE who planned to be there. The other DE's didn't seem surprised to see Snape. --- wynnleaf
From the way I read the scene I think it's reasonable to assume that the Death Eaters were working from a different plan than Draco. It hadn't occurred to me (and it should have) that Snape would know things from the other Death Eaters he couldn't get from Draco.
This scene is so confusing I'm still waiting for an explanation that says "This is the only way it could have happened." I suspect the only one of those I'll get is Rowling's in book 7.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2006 7:21 am (#921 of 1629)
Thanks, Steve, for reminding me that DD got Harry to apparate them to Hogsmeade.
However, since DD was quite strong enough to fly on a broom and re-arrange the spells on Hogwarts at the same time, I think he'd have been strong enough to send a patronus. After all, we're not talking about such a powerful patronus to fight off hundreds of dementors -- or even one. He'd only need to send a message.
Yet he didn't send the faster patronus to Snape, but instead tried to send Harry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 27, 2006 8:45 am (#922 of 1629)
Thank you, Steve. That is what I meant, that Dumbledore was too weak to Apparate from the Cave to Hogsmeade.
The way I read it, DD wanted Harry to go to Snape, and for Snape to come to meet him (DD) without Harry. I think that was the original plan. –wynnleaf
I agree. Because of his expertise in the Dark Arts, Snape was able to aid Dumbledore when he had been injured getting the Gaunt Ring Horcrux. Now Dumbledore is again injured while trying to get another Horcrux. So he wants Snape.
Then the Dark Mark appears. Usually the Dark Mark is only cast over a spot where a murder has occurred. So, adrenaline rush for Dumbledore. Dumbledore flies with Harry to the Tower, and he is able to counter the spells he himself put up to prevent flying into Hogwarts. Now he has a different plan, which doesn't involve Snape. With the adrenaline rush, I agree at that point Dumbledore could do magic. But he doesn't send a Patronusgram to Snape because now his interest is getting to the Tower, not getting Snape. What would he expect to find on the Tower? Someone dead, most likely. Or perhaps Order members. Maybe Draco. Possibly Snape, if Snape is following Draco around, but not Snape alone. Dumbledore himself said he never expected Death Eaters to make it into the castle, so he's not expecting an army of Death Eaters.
No one is on the Tower. There are no sounds of the battle from below. Dumbledore crashes down from his adrenaline rush. He switches back to Plan A, and tries to send Harry to get Snape. He obviously doesn't know about the battle raging on the floor below.
Harry and Dumbledore hear one person --one!-- running up the stairs. Dumbledore chooses to freeze Harry rather than the person coming through the door. We seem to be off the Go Get Snape plan again, and maybe back to Plan B, or onto Plan C. Dumbledore might be acting on some plan at this point, but it doesn't involve Snape.
Wynnleaf, that is a good point that Snape could learn information from other DEs besides Draco. But the plan to send up the Dark Mark over the Astronomy Tower was only hatched within the RoR after all the Death Eaters had come through. I don't think it was too difficult for Snape to figure out he had to go up to the 7th floor. That's where the RoR is, and I do think Snape was thinking Draco was involved. How hard would it be to follow the sounds of battle once there? Portraits would have been awakened by the commotion, and could point him in the right direction. All he'd have to see is one of the Good Guys or spell bounce off the barrier on the stairs to know something was up. I don't see any evidence that Snape had prior knowledge about the Tower. He may well have had a plan to locate Draco, though.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Nov 27, 2006 9:23 am (#923 of 1629)
. . . since DD was quite strong enough to fly on a broom and re-arrange the spells on Hogwarts at the same time
wynnleaf, this is what bothers me. Why the restoration of powers when he leaves the cave? Has he had time to recover? Just wanted to give Harry a morale boost? The cave was somehow weakening him? There is something about Hogsmeade that strengthens him?
While I like the last, since it might indicate why Aberforth lives in Hogsmeade, I see no evidence to particularly support any one of them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 27, 2006 9:38 am (#924 of 1629)
Do we think that Snape was anticipating Draco would make his attempt on DD that particular night? Why wouldn't Snape stay hot on Draco's tale? If he were to fail to keep Draco safe and if Draco tried and failed to kill DD, Snape would die. Did Snape know tonight was the night? We've speculated that Dumbledore's mistake was thinking he had more time than he did. What if he was off not just an hour or two, but by a whole day? If Snape was in on a plan with DD, that would explain why he was sitting in his office, rather than stalking Draco. He didn't know Draco was making his move that night. It's also why he streaked out of his office like a bat out of hell when Flitwick told him what was going on. He needed to get to Draco before Draco screwed anything up. Perhaps Draco let Snape know his plans but didn't tell him when he'd take action, or he tricked Snape. Draco no longer trusted Snape.
I'm sorry if this aspect has been discussed already and I missed it (or simply forgot). You know how it is when you think you've discovered a new idea.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 27, 2006 9:53 am (#925 of 1629)
Fawkes could have been a baby bird in a pile of ashes at the time.
While possible, I think unlikely. The Phoenix lament was quite powerful, could the baby phoenix do this?
As for Fawkes coming to DD's aid in the cave. DD didn't need him, he had Harry. In the MoM, DD only summoned Fawkes on the 4th AK when he really needed him. On the tower, it would appear he really needed him, but no Fawkes. I have to think this is by DD's choice.
Can't recall who said it, but the Dark Mark being cast over the tower, this being decided in the RoR? Lupin guesses this, but we do not know how Lupin would know this. Thought it was a weird thing for him to say.
journeymom-
The only problem I have with your thought is that I think Malfoy planned to act when DD was out of the castle. Does he leave every day? I think Malfoy had a plan and DEs standing by on alert from the moment he fixed the cabinet, then DD left the castle and he brought the DEs in.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 926 to 950
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:26 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2006 10:43 am (#926 of 1629)
I don't think it was too difficult for Snape to figure out he had to go up to the 7th floor. That's where the RoR is, and I do think Snape was thinking Draco was involved. How hard would it be to follow the sounds of battle once there? Portraits would have been awakened by the commotion, and could point him in the right direction. All he'd have to see is one of the Good Guys or spell bounce off the barrier on the stairs to know something was up. (Mrs Brisbee)
The problem with Snape going to the tower just because he sees other Order members attempting to get there is that the barrier, etc., is no indication that Dumbledore and Draco were up on the tower. Particularly because Snape almost certainly knew -- like the other staff and Order members -- that DD had left the castle that night. Yet Snape needed to be where ever Draco and DD were, not just where ever the fighting was. He apparently had no hesitancy in running directly to the spot where DD and Draco were. That leads me to believe that he already expected them to be there.
Do we think that Snape was anticipating Draco would make his attempt on Dd that particular night? Why wouldn't Snape stay hot on Draco's tale? (journeymom)
DD seemed to think Draco would make an attempt that night. DD brought in extra Order members, even bringing back Lupin from the werewolf mission, to patrol the castle. DD made his leaving the castle purposefully obvious to anyone spying on him. And DD seemed to know that Snape would be in his rooms, in spite of the fact that DD had other Order members patrolling the halls. Therefore it seems likely that DD had told Snape to stay in his rooms. DD needed to be able to find Snape as soon as he needed him.
wynnleaf, this is what bothers me. Why the restoration of powers when he leaves the cave? Has he had time to recover? Just wanted to give Harry a morale boost? (Steve Newton)
Steve, I think this is peculiar. The adrenaline rush just doesn't answer it for me -- particularly because JKR doesn't make any obvious references that would directly lead us to think that DD was able to suddenly outfly Harry and remove those spells due to a rush of energy. If JKR had given some indicators of a sudden rush of energy for DD, then I'd believe it, but she doesn't do that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 27, 2006 11:04 am (#927 of 1629)
Can't recall who said it, but the Dark Mark being cast over the tower, this being decided in the RoR? Lupin guesses this, but we do not know how Lupin would know this. Thought it was a weird thing for him to say.
Draco-- not Lupin-- says it to Dumbledore in "The Lightning Struck Tower". Draco would know.
The problem with Snape going to the tower just because he sees other Order members attempting to get there is that the barrier, etc., is no indication that Dumbledore and Draco were up on the tower. Particularly because Snape almost certainly knew -- like the other staff and Order members -- that DD had left the castle that night. – wynnleaf
I think that's a good indication that Snape isn't looking for Dumbledore specifically-- he's looking for Draco. When he doesn't see Draco with the other Death Eaters, and there seems to be a barrier only Death Eaters can go through, he then goes through it to see if Draco is on the other side. There's no reason to suspect he will find Dumbledore, who has left the castle. It's quite possible that Snape and Dumbledore have slightly different plans. If Dumbledore can deal with Draco without Snape around, there is a possibility that the Unbreakable Vow can be circumvented: Snape only has to carry out the deed if it "seems" Draco will fail; in other words, what Snape doesn't know, can't hurt him. But I think Snape had other plans.
DD seemed to think Draco would make an attempt that night. DD brought in extra Order members, even bringing back Lupin from the werewolf mission, to patrol the castle. DD made his leaving the castle purposefully obvious to anyone spying on him. And DD seemed to know that Snape would be in his rooms, in spite of the fact that DD had other Order members patrolling the halls. Therefore it seems likely that DD had told Snape to stay in his rooms. DD needed to be able to find Snape as soon as he needed him.
I agree that Dumbledore must have suspected Draco was going to try something, and did make his leaving obvious to any watchers. Dumbledore also kept Snape separate from the other Order members, down in his room. Perhaps so he could see Snape privately should he suffer another injury Horcrux Hunting. Or perhaps to keep Snape uninvolved in anything that might happen on the 7th floor where the RoR is located. The dungeon is a long way from the 7th floor.
The adrenaline rush just doesn't answer it for me -- particularly because JKR doesn't make any obvious references that would directly lead us to think that DD was able to suddenly outfly Harry and remove those spells due to a rush of energy. If JKR had given some indicators of a sudden rush of energy for DD, then I'd believe it, but she doesn't do that.
I guess I have an easier time with it because my husband has been chronically ill for years, but if something happens that requires him to spring into action, he can, and is as fast and strong as he needs to be. But afterwards he feels shaky and ill. I've had a couple of adrenaline rushes in my life, too, and I'll tell you they can sure wake you up!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 27, 2006 11:29 am (#928 of 1629)
M Brisbee-
Away from my book, so bear with me, Draco says they decided to cast the dark mark to get DD to the tower, but does he say this was decided that night in the RoR? Or was this part of Draco's plan all along? Had he only planned to get the DEs into the castle, and the rest was made up that night under pressure with DD returning after just a drink? Amazing that the DEs came along with no plan.
I thought it was Lupin who said something about the DEs deciding things before they left the RoR.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2006 11:33 am (#929 of 1629)
I think we need our books out! I'll have mine in a few hours.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
T Vrana - Nov 27, 2006 12:18 pm (#930 of 1629)
Have mine, now!
Draco does say they decided to cast the dark mark to lure DD to the tower. He doesn't say when this was decided.
It is Lupin who later says they must have decided in the RoR to send Gibbon to set the dark mark.
If the DEs came to the RoR without Draco having a plan, that's odd, isn't it? If killing DD was plan #1, seems the DEs would have wanted more than access to kill DD. If I were volunteering to help kill the most powerful wizard in the WW I would like to know the plan....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Nov 27, 2006 12:52 pm (#931 of 1629)
If I were volunteering to help kill the most powerful wizard in the WW I would like to know the plan.... --- T Vrana
I'm sure that the Death Eaters that came to Hogwarts were every bit as much a volunteer as Draco.
Many dictators (Stalin & Hitler come to mind) made a practice of lying to their subordinates & gave them conflicting orders, tasks, & responsibilities. The whole point was to keep any of them from becoming powerful enough to supplant the thug at the top. I'm sure Riddle has similar practices in dealing with the Death Eaters. (What good is it to be immortal if your Evil Overlordhood is usurped by your minions?)
Much of the confusion on The Stormstruck Tower was intentionally caused by Tom Riddle's lies to his Death Eaters. (Opinion, no canon)
EDIT: (I am amazed that spell check accepted "Evil Overlordhood")(And then it rejects it on the edit. What's up with that?)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 27, 2006 1:38 pm (#932 of 1629)
Tom- I should have more carefully chosen my words. Not really trying to imply volunteerism among the DEs, but, it does seem odd that Draco had all year to plan this moment, and it turns out he hadn't planned more than fixing the cabinet, getting the DEs in, and knowing when DD was in Hogsmeade? Makes me think my other theory, (original task not to kill DD) has even more merit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 27, 2006 8:10 pm (#933 of 1629)
Draco does say they decided to cast the dark mark to lure DD to the tower. He doesn't say when this was decided.
It is Lupin who later says they must have decided in the RoR to send Gibbon to set the dark mark.-- T Vrana
I completely don't remember Lupin saying that. But I do remember the part about Gibbon.
I should have provided a quote for Draco, but I confess to being too lazy to type out half a page right then. Anyway, Draco is providing a confession of sorts to Dumbledore about his various attempts to kill him, going in chronological order. So, here:
*********
Now, about tonight, Dumbledore went on, "I am a little puzzled about how it happened.... You knew that I had left the school? But of course," he answered his own question, "Rosmerta saw me leaving, she tipped you off using your ingenious coins, I'm sure."
“That's right,” said Malfoy. "But she said you were just going for a drink, you'd be back...."
“Well, I certainly did have a drink... and I came back... after a fashion,” mumbled Dumbledore. "So you decided to spring a trap for me?"
“We decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower and get you to hurry up here, to see who'd been killed," said Malfoy. "And it worked!" (HBP, Ch 27, "The Lightning-Struck Tower")
********
Draco, as I see it, is providing an explanation of that night. He gets the report from Rosmerta that Dumbledore has gone to town for a drink, and a plan is hatched based on that information. He says "we decided", not "we had decided" (i.e., beforehand).
If I were volunteering to help kill the most powerful wizard in the WW I would like to know the plan....
ROFL! Well there is that! Still, plans have to adapt to circumstances. Draco just happened to fix the cabinets on the same night Dumbledore strolled over to Hogsmeade for a drink. I think the Death Eaters grabbed the opportunity presented.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 27, 2006 9:45 pm (#934 of 1629)
To be serious for a moment, I disagree that Ollivander could have done a big business in mail order wands. If France and Bulgaria have their own wand makers, then other countries likely do, too, and I think each country's people would favor their own wand makers for the most part.
While we're talking on and off about why Fawkes didn't come to DD's aid on the tower, I think we need to also spend more time wondering why he didn't come to the cave when Dumbledore was suffering so. Wouldn't he have wanted to try to heal DD's pain with a tear?
I think "I came back...after a fashion" is the key phrase in Dumbledore's statement, because I still like the idea that he as already dead and his death had been stoppered.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 28, 2006 1:28 am (#935 of 1629)
“I think I came back...after a fashion" is the key phrase in Dumbledore's statement, because I still like the idea that he was already dead and his death had been stoppered."
Brew fame, bottle glory, stopper death. Why do I get the feeling that Snape may have blown his cover in that first opening class statement, yet DD "seems" to do the same thing. Ironic huh?
...toddles off shaking head in wonder; I agreed with Die...
..."tis the season"...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 28, 2006 1:42 am (#936 of 1629)
"It is Lupin who later says they must have decided in the RoR to send Gibbon to set the dark mark." -- T Vrana
"I completely don't remember Lupin saying that."
Here it is, Mrs. Brisbee. HBP, Chapter 29, p.377-378 (Raincoast) --
(Lupin): "... We found the Death Eaters minutes later, heading in the direction of the Astronomy Tower. ... A fight broke out, they scattered and we gave chase. One of them, Gibbon, broke away and headed up the Tower stairs-"
(Harry): "To set off the Mark?"
(Lupin): "He must have done, yes, they must have arranged that before they left the Room of Requirement. ..."
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 28, 2006 7:14 am (#937 of 1629)
”So you decided to spring a trap for me?
We decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower and get you to hurry up here, to see who'd been killed," said Malfoy. "And it worked!"
Since at least one of the goals of the evening was to set a trap for DD, one would assume that they would not just arrive at the RoR and then say, "now how are we going to trap him?" They must have had a plan prior to coming for how they would lure DD somewhere. Therefore it makes much more sense that when Draco said, "we decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower," that he's speaking of something that they had decided well before that evening.
After all, the only lure or trap that they did was to set up the mark over the tower. If they had not previously planned to do that, then that means that as regards how to kill DD, Draco and the DE's started the evening with no plan whatsoever.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 28, 2006 7:20 am (#938 of 1629)
Thanks, Laura.
Lupin seems to be saying that the Death Eaters were operating from a pre-set plan once they left the RoR. Rowling does seem to be reinforcing the "plot-hatched-in-the-RoR" scenario. Of course Lupin wouldn't know that, but it does go along with what Draco said.
Therefore it makes much more sense that when Draco said, "we decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower," that he's speaking of something that they had decided well before that evening.—wynnleaf
Cross-posted . They might have had a plan of some sort that got scrapped, because they didn't know Dumbledore was going out for a drink in Hogsmeade until Rosmerta sent Draco the message. The Dark Mark over the Tower would have been useless if Dumbledore was inside the castle, or had travelled away somewhere else (Dumbledore did go away somewhere, but the DEs didn't know that). It sounds to me like the Death Eaters adapted to take advantage of a good opportunity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 28, 2006 8:25 am (#939 of 1629)
I think that Draco and the DE's only put any plan into action because they discovered that DD had left the castle.
Otherwise we enter the realm of the ridiculously circumstantial.
Draco and DE's just happen to finish the cabinet and just happen to plan an attack on the castle on the night that DD just happens to leave for the cave. And DD just happens to make his absence well known, and just happens to have Order members patrolling the halls the night Draco was going to bring in the DE's. And further, Draco just happens to bring in the DE's after DD left the castle -- not because DD had left the castle.
No, just too circumstantial.
It works much better to have DD leaving the castle giving Draco the evidence (by his obvious trip through Hogsmeade) that he has gone, while putting Order members in the halls knowing that Draco will take advantage of his absence to start an attack. Then Draco calls the DE's together and they enter the castle after DD is gone, setting up a pre-arranged trap to lure him to the tower.
Nothing Draco says indicates that they created that plan at the last minute.
What Lupin said doesn't make some sort of confirmation by JKR, any more than Lupin saying that Snape would have killed Hermione and Luna outside his office is any confirmation that Snape would have, or that the students and staff thinking Snape is loyal to LV is a confirmation that he is.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Nov 28, 2006 8:42 am (#940 of 1629)
I agree, wynnleaf.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 28, 2006 8:52 am (#941 of 1629)
think that Draco and the DE's only put any plan into action because they discovered that DD had left the castle.
It's possible. But remember that time is short. We are into June here. School lets out in mere weeks. Voldemort isn't going to be too happy with Draco if the school year ends without him completing his task. Can Draco and the Death Eaters really only have one set plan that requires Dumbledore to do something specific in order for it to work? Like I said, it's possible, but it would be far more likely that with a year to plan for contingencies they would have several plans of action available, and be ready to adapt them to take advantage of favorable circumstances.
Otherwise we enter the realm of the ridiculously circumstantial.
The incredibly coincidental. Fiction is rife with it. It wouldn't be the first time Rowling's has had everything happen at once for plot reasons.
Draco and DE's just happen to finish the cabinet and just happen to plan an attack on the castle on the night that DD just happens to leave for the cave.
Yes, Draco just happened to finish the cabinet 15 minutes before Dumbledore planned to leave the school. Harry just happens to pass the RoR at the right moment to see Trelawney, who just happened to get in the RoR at the right moment to hear Draco whooping.
And DD just happens to make his absence well known,
Rosmerta sees him and reports to Draco. But yes, he could have snuck out of the school.
and just happens to have Order members patrolling the halls the night Draco was going to bring in the DE's.
Didn't Dumbledore say he leaves the school well protected everytime he leaves? Or am I imagining things?
And further, Draco just happens to bring in the DE's after DD left the castle -- not because DD had left the castle.
Hard to say when exactly the DEs got to Hogwarts. Rosmerta may have reported to Draco before the DEs came, and that's why he scrambled them there. It's too good an opportunity to miss.
It works much better to have DD leaving the castle giving Draco the evidence (by his obvious trip through Hogsmeade) that he has gone, while putting Order members in the halls knowing that Draco will take advantage of his absence to start an attack.
If Draco's plan is to kill Dumbledore, then Dumbledore shouldn't think Draco will attack if he is absent. Dumbledore also said he thought it impossible for Death Eaters to get into the school. If Dumbledore suspected an all out attack on Hogwarts, I don't think he would have left the school. I think it more likely that he figured Draco could wait, because Draco would wait. That might explain why he chose to walk down to Hogsmeade like that, because he hoped Draco would hear he left and would put off whatever he was planning until later.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 28, 2006 9:07 am (#942 of 1629)
Didn't Dumbledore say he leaves the school well protected every time he leaves? Or am I imagining things?
Harry had been checking the Marauder's Map with intense interest for months and had not seen evidence of such a large group of Order members patrolling the inner corridors of the castle. Further, DD had even brought Lupin back from his assignment with the werewolves in order to help. Clearly DD expected a higher likelihood of trouble that night than usual.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 9:50 am (#943 of 1629)
I agree, Wynnleaf, that DD was expecting the possibility of trouble. I think he may have listened to Trelawney and Harry more than he let on.
If the plan was hatched that night, how did Snape know to go directly to the top of the tower? Someone mentioned that Snape saw the Order bouncing off the barrier, but I'm not sure that is true. The account given by the order is that Snape arrived and ran straight for the stairs. If he did see others bouncing of, why would he assume he could get through? There has to be prior knowledge for some of this to work. Either Snape knew from DD or the DEs, that the tower was planned, I think.
I still can't get past DD's remark that all this took place 'right under his nose', and his answer to Draco's assertion that his trap worked..
“We decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower and get you to hurry up here, to see who'd been killed," said Malfoy. "And it worked!"
Yes..and no...
Why the 'no'?
I do think DD had a plan, and in order for DD to have a plan, he must know some of Draco's plan.
But I do find it curious that Draco said "we" decided to set the Dark Mark. He took credit for the cabinet, but it seems clear the DEs helped decide the dark mark and tower.
If killing DD was not the primary reason for being there, then how they accomplish killing DD may not be such a big deal. They may have simply waited for DD to leave the castle to accomplish 'whatever', then set about planning how to get DD back so Draco could kill him.
I'm not sure there is a reason for Rosmerta to have the coin except to let Draco know when DD is in Hogsmeade, so Draco can implement his plan.
Rambling..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Nov 28, 2006 10:35 am (#944 of 1629)
Die Z - "Wouldn't he have wanted to try to heal DD's pain with a tear?"
That raises the question.....can phoenix tears heal pain or can they only heal open wounds? I think phoenix song can heal mental pain or anguish, but must there be an open wound for the tears to enter and heal? I think we have only ever seen the tears heal when the wound was open.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 10:42 am (#945 of 1629)
Die- While we're talking on and off about why Fawkes didn't come to DD's aid on the tower, I think we need to also spend more time wondering why he didn't come to the cave when Dumbledore was suffering so. Wouldn't he have wanted to try to heal DD's pain with a tear?
Choices has a point, but Fawkes could have acted as transport, but he didn't. I think the fact that he didn't arrive at the MoM for the first 3 AKs, only the fourth, that he didn't arrive at the cave or the tower, shows one of three things:
1) He comes when DD summons him.
2) He somehow knows when DD wants or needs him. In the case of the cave, DD didn't really need him, he had Harry. On the tower it can be argued he needed him, but did he want him?
3) He couldn't come. (I don't see any reason for this one).
I still have to think DD summons him, that DD is in charge, not just waiting to be rescued by an intuitive pet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 28, 2006 11:48 am (#946 of 1629)
I still have to think DD summons him, that DD is in charge, not just waiting to be rescued by an intuitive pet.
I think it has to work both ways. Since DD did not appear to have sent Fawkes to Harry in COS, it seems that Fawkes has an intuitive knowledge that he can respond to, without a direct command from DD. On the other hand, DD seems to be able to direct Fawkes. So it could be that DD specifically directed Fawkes not to come to him that night.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 1:50 pm (#947 of 1629)
Perhaps. But DD said, before he was removed from Hogwarts in CoS, that help would come to any who ask:
“You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.”
I think DD may have let Fawkes know that in his absence Harry might need help, and should he ask, Fawkes should respond.
This also confirms, for me, that Fawkes responds to requests for help, not that he chooses when to help.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Laura W - Nov 28, 2006 1:50 pm (#948 of 1629)
"Didn't Dumbledore say he leaves the school well protected everytime he leaves? Or am I imagining things?" (Mrs. Brisbee)
Assuming that wasn't a rhetorical question, here's what the book says -
(DD to Harry): "Do you think that I have once left the school unprotected during my absences this year? I have not. Tonight, when I leave, there will again be additional protection in place. Please do not suggest that I do not take the safety of my students seriously, Harry."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: the Fawkes question in your post 945, T. Vrana, you wrote, "I still have to think DD summons him, that DD is in charge, not just waiting to be rescued by an intuitive pet."
For me, Fawkes coming to Harry in CoS and Dumbledore's comment that Harry must really have been loyal to DD in order for Fawkes to do that (or something like that), tells me a) that Dumbledore had no prior knowledge about Fawkes going to Harry and b) that the Phoenix does not need to be summoned, but has such a spiritual (magical?) connection with Dumbledore's best interests that he "knows" - not exactly the right word - when to appear (and when not to, I guess). I also firmly believe DD did not send Fawkes' song to give Harry courage and advice (ie - do not let go of your wand) to the graveyard scene in GoF. Whatever called Fawkes to Harry in the chamber in CoS also called him to Harry in GoF. (And, again, I'm not sure "called" is exactly the best word.)
In other words, I vote for your suggestion no. 2 as being most likely here. (I could be wrong, though.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 28, 2006 2:47 pm (#949 of 1629)
Thank you, Laura. It wasn't a rhetorical question. I thought Dumbledore had said as much, but couldn't remember where or when.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Laura W - Nov 28, 2006 3:06 pm (#950 of 1629)
(DD to Harry): "Do you think that I have once left the school unprotected during my absences this year? I have not. Tonight, when I leave, there will again be additional protection in place. Please do not suggest that I do not take the safety of my students seriously, Harry."
HBP, Chapter 25 (The Seer Overheard), p.514 (Raincoast).
Where? In Dumbledore's office. When? Just before he and Harry left for the cave. (grin)
No indication from that wording that there will be any extra special protection put on the castle *this particular night* ("will again be additional protection"), but maybe DD just didn't feel the need to tell Harry - or us - that he is expecting something different to occur than has on the other occasions when he left Hogwarts. Keeps the readers in the dark, resulting in greater surprise when what happened.
Laura
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 951 to 975
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:27 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 4:09 pm (#951 of 1629)
Laura- As wynnleaf mentioned, Harry has been scrutinizing the Marauders Map all year looking for Malfoy, but he never notices that there are Order members patrolling inside the castle when DD is away.
See post 947 about Fawkes, we posted at the same time. DD basically tells Harry that if he asks, aid will be given. Then, later,
“You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you.”
Bold mine, Fawkes was called, or summoned, by Harry. He didn't decide to come because he thought he was needed, he came because Harry 'called' him when he expressed such loyalty to DD. True, Harry didn't say or even think, Fawkes come here and help, but he had been told by DD help would come. So, I think DD may have asked Fawkes to help if needed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 28, 2006 11:53 pm (#952 of 1629)
"Laura- As wynnleaf mentioned, Harry has been scrutinizing the Marauders Map all year looking for Malfoy, but he never notices that there are Order members patrolling inside the castle when DD is away." (T. Vrana)
So why does DD say "Do you think I have once left the school unprotected during my absences this year? I have not." ?
If not members of the Order, what has he done to protect the school during his absences throughout the year up till the night of the Cave incident? Obviously something.
I *know* Harry has been checking the Map throughout the whole sixth year looking for Draco. But just because he never actually mentions seeing members of the Order in the castle during those times DD is away doesn't mean they are not there or that he doesn't see them.
I mean, on the train to school Tonks tells Harry that she, Proudfoot, Savage and Dawlish have been stationed in Hogsmeade "to give the school extra protection" . They can't protect the school from Hogsmeade. Logic tells me that Dumbledore has them come to the school and prowl around whenever he leaves it. That is what he means by that statement. Yet we don't hear Harry say to himself or anyone else that he sees them on the Map.
Just because he doesn't say it, it doesn't mean they are not there. Tonks has already told him they are going to be there to protect the school, so Harry would not be surprised to see them on the Map or feel the need to make mention of it to himself or anyone else (e.g. - Ron or Hermoine).
He is focused on Draco anyway, and is undoubtedly not paying attention to the other little dots moving around the Map. He had to have seen plenty of people (ie - everybody in the school or on the grounds) on the Map each time he consulted it, but did not feel inclined to say, "Oh, there's Dean" or whatever. For him, only one dot was worth paying attention to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, as I wrote at the bottom of my last post, I am not saying that DD did *not* put extra people on duty - above and beyond the people he assigned to the castle every other time he went away - on that night, expecting something different to occur. I'm not sure about that either way.
I am just, in this message, arguing the case that some Order members (Tonks, Dawlish, Proudfoot, Savage, and maybe others) *were* how DD "did not leave the school unprotected." And that I'm not convinced - for the reasons given above - that they were not there merely because Harry doesn't come out and say he sees them on the Map. Between what Tonks has told us and what Dumbledore says, I seriously believe *that* (Order members keeping a lookout) was DDs method of taking the safety of his students seriously all year. Or one of the ways at least.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 29, 2006 4:32 am (#953 of 1629)
You may be right, but I think the protection, up until that night, most likely patrolled outside, as Tonks was doing on the first night. With Harry poring over the Marauders Map for Malfoy, it seems he would have noticed the Order inside patrolling the corridors, especially at night when all students were in their common rooms by 9 pm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 29, 2006 4:41 am (#954 of 1629)
And maybe, *you're* right, T.
I just don't know anymore. ...
Actually, Dawlish, Savage and Proudfoot are not members of the Order. They are Aurors. So, while they were brought in to give added protection to the school when DD was away (and I still think they were both inside and outside the castle at those times), and Harry would have seen them on the Map but not commented on it - but they would have been there, even though he did not -; we really do not know if any other actual members of the Order save Tonks and McGonagall were put on guard at Hogwarts before *that* night. So maybe what DD meant by his statements about not leaving the school unprotected referred just to the Aurors. I think it would have been more than that; even more powerful enchantments on the castle than had already been put on them. But I don't know.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that Harry did not mention seeing Order members on the Map or mention Aurors prowling around on the Map or mention anything else on the Map - his eyes sought only the Malfoy boy; his brain would only register *that* dot in the state his mind was in throughout Book Six -, does not prove they were not there. But it doesn't prove that they were either.
There is just too much information that has been left out. I need more facts and I don't have them. And it's getting frustrating for me. (sigh)
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 29, 2006 6:41 am (#955 of 1629)
Laura,
I agree that DD was taking measures to ensure the protection of the castle every time he left. But apparently, in the past, that didn't include bringing in a number of Order members and aurors and having them patrol that particular area within the castle. The fact that so many were patroling that area, and especially the fact that DD even recalled an Order member from another important assignment to help, leads me to believe that DD fully expected Draco to strike that night.
If we assume that DD didn't know about the cabinets, but did know Draco was up to something, then that means DD -- while not knowing that was the particular night Draco would have the cabinets ready for the attack -- did know that his leaving the castle was even more likely to precipitate a major confrontation than on other nights that he'd left.
He knew that the "trigger" would be his leaving the castle. And he knew that Draco was a lot closer to achieving his goal than in the past -- because DD took stronger measures that night.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 29, 2006 10:29 am (#956 of 1629)
Whew, a lot of posts to catch up on. I agree ,Wynnleaf. Tonks mentioned herself, Dawlish and Proudfoot as patroling Hogsmead. I believe when Dumbledore leaves the castle the aurors probably patrol the castle. But,the night Harry and Dumbledore set off the castle is further protected by Lupin, Bill and others not mentioned by Tonks previously. This tells me that Dumbledore definitely suspected trouble on that night. Perhaps Dumbledore, after listening to both Trelawney and Harry, sent for them while Harry was getting his cloak.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 29, 2006 10:47 am (#957 of 1629)
I like that idea..
But just to argue the other side for a moment...no one from the Order mentions that DD must have known something was up because this was the first time they were asked to patrol inside and at the last minute.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 29, 2006 11:09 am (#958 of 1629)
We're being, in my opinion, awfully selective in what we will believe or not believe. It seems some of us will believe Dumbledore literally when he says Harry's loyalty called Fawkes, but will not believe Lupin's deducing what he did the night Dumbledore was killed.
How do you know what to take and what to leave alone? If it's in the book, I tend to believe it literally, otherwise it's no point even speculating on things characters have said, because you can't trust anything. The problem is sometimes things contradict each other. Is that always intentional, always a mistake or a mix of both?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Nov 29, 2006 11:16 am (#959 of 1629)
I agree that DD was taking measures to ensure the protection of the castle every time he left. But apparently, in the past, that didn't include bringing in a number of Order members and aurors and having them patrol that particular area within the castle. The fact that so many were patrolling that area, and especially the fact that DD even recalled an Order member from another important assignment to help, leads me to believe that DD fully expected Draco to strike that night. --wynnleaf
Although I think Dumbledore did take extra precautions for that night-- I'd really hate to think he ignored Harry's warning-- but I don't know where in the book it said that these steps were above the usual precautions. McGonagall said they were to patrol just in case because Dumbledore was going to be gone a few hours, but she doesn't indicate that this was an unusual thing. I don't remember anyone saying Lupin was recalled from his assignment specifically to do this. When was the last time that we heard anything about what Lupin was up to? Do we know that they were patrolling a particular area within the castle? Ron, Neville, and Ginny didn't see them the whole time they were camped out in front of the RoR. It was more likely they were patrolling the whole castle. They could have been patrolling the whole castle on other nights, too. With 7 floors, towers, and dungeons it would be no wonder Harry didn't notice them on a map.
Edit: I agree, Die Zimtzicke. It is best to take things as stated, unless there is solid evidence indicating otherwise.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Nov 29, 2006 11:58 am (#960 of 1629)
We're being, in my opinion, awfully selective in what we will believe or not believe. --- Die Zimtzicke
I understand you, Die Zimtzicke. For my part, if we see it happen I think it's very reliable (always remembering that we're really seeing through Harry's eyes & Harry was fooled by Crouch, Jr.)
If someone tells us(Harry) something we have to consider who said it and why they said it. None of Jo's characters speak with 100% accuracy, some are mistaken, some are prejudiced, some are deceitful, and some have been deceived. Real people never speak absolute accurate truth, their words are always colored by who and what they are; Jo's characters are no different. My favorite example is that everything we know about wands was told to us by a wand salesman (ask a car salesman if it's better to by new or used and see what kind of answer you get, why should Ollivander be any different?).
The difficulty with Dumbledore's Death is that a great deal of what we know about that scene is suspect on some level. We know Snape's been concealing things from Harry. It is reasonable to believe that Dumbledore concealed things from Harry. I've decided that there is too little information to draw any definitive conclusions about the scene, we can only narrow the possibilities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 29, 2006 1:06 pm (#961 of 1629)
We're being, in my opinion, awfully selective in what we will believe or not believe. It seems some of us will believe Dumbledore literally when he says Harry's loyalty called Fawkes, but will not believe Lupin's deducing what he did the night Dumbledore was killed.
Die- I'm not following this. What are we not believing that Lupin deduced?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 29, 2006 2:05 pm (#962 of 1629)
1.
I agree that DD was taking measures to ensure the protection of the castle every time he left. But apparently, in the past, that didn't include bringing in a number of Order members and aurors and having them patrol that particular area within the castle. (wynnleaf)
This is where we disagree - to an extent - wynnleaf. You are convinced that neither Order members or Aurors were brought into the castle at all throughout Year Six before that night. I see no proof of that.
I have already explained twice in detail why I don't buy the "Harry did not see them on the Map" case so, as far as I'm concerned, it is just as possible that DD *was* having Aurors run security within the castle as well as on the grounds as not. In fact, with no canon to say they had or hadn't done so, it just seems logical to me that they would. They are there to provide maximum protection, after all. Again, in my opinion, we have no canon to show that any members of the Orders were or were not brought into the castle for extra duty at any time before that night. If one does not buy the "Harry did not see them on the Map" argument, one cannot rule out (or rule in) that. on some other occasions that year, when DD was away he called in one or another loyal Order member to make sure that Hogwarts was still the safest place for the children to be in this time of war.
That is why I cannot accept the certainty of your quote at the top of this message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
I just thought of something else. (little lightbulb going on)
In explaining how Dumbledore set things up that night, McGonagall says, "I don't know exactly how it happened. It's all so confusing ... Dumbledore had told us that he would be leaving the school for a few hours and that we were to patrol the corridors just in case ... Remus, Bill and Nymphadora were to join us ..." (HBP, p.575, Raincoast).
Who is the "us" that was supposed to patrol the corridors (excluding the three Order members who would be joining "us")? Who, for that matter is the "us" (not the three Order members who would be joining the "us" DD gave his instructions to before setting off for Hogsmeade) that he told "he would be leaving the school"?
Minerva did not say, in the hospital wing, "Dumbledore told me he would be leaving the school and I should patrol the corridors and that Remus, Bill and Nymphadora would be coming to help me do so." But, "told us."
So, who else would he have told - from within the school (or perhaps McGonagall was including the Aurors) - about his leaving and instructed to patrol that night (as I assume they have patrolled the corridors every time he left Hogwarts that whole year)?
Hmmm.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 29, 2006 3:37 pm (#963 of 1629)
Well - I'm back to agreeing with Wynnleaf. The “us” includes Flitwick, at least. In addition, it sounds from above as if Bill, Lupin and Tonks joining them wasn't ordinary, as she mentions it, rather than assuming 'us' meant the teachers and Order as it had all year (by your theory). That is, if it were normal for the Order to patrol, why mention they would be joining them?
Further supporting this, Harry runs into Tonks outside the RoR and is completely surprised, so he has been unaware of her being inside, despite DD being absent many times throughout the year. He may miss her here and there, but to study the map and never see her, even at night when the corridors would be largely empty, seems unlikely. But more importantly, Tonks was looking for DD, and DD was away. If Tonks regularly patrolled inside when DD was gone, why would she not have been aware he was away?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 29, 2006 3:58 pm (#964 of 1629)
This is where we disagree - to an extent - wynnleaf. You are convinced that neither Order members or Aurors were brought into the castle at all throughout Year Six before that night.
Sorry, this is not what I said, or at least meant. I didn't mean that DD never had any Order member patrol in the castle. What I meant was that apparently -- given that Harry was keeping such a close watch -- there had never before been such a contingent of Order members and staff patrolling within the castle, at least not near that area of the castle, which is the part Harry was watching so closely.
As regards who to believe. I see no reason to "believe" a character who is guessing, as Lupin was. DD was not guessing about Fawkes. Nor do I typically thoroughly believe a character when that character is commenting within an area of that character's extreme bias -- like Harry's opinions of Snape, or Snape's opinions of James.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Nov 29, 2006 6:18 pm (#965 of 1629)
wynnleaf, am I correct that your supposition is that:
1) Fawkes should have come to Dumbledore's aid given what Dumbledore has told Harry about Phoenix behavior and Fawkes behavior at the Ministry of Magic in Book 5
2) Since Fawkes did not come to Dumbledore's aid we are forced to assume that Dumbledore instructed him not not to come to his aid.
There are only two counters to this argument:
1) Rowling forgot to take Fawkes into account when writing HBP; an unlikely scenario, but not impossible. And:
2) Fawkes was unable to come to Dumbledore's aid for a reason unknown to the reader; also unlikely.
From here we have to go onto why would Dumbledore order Fawkes not to intervene. There are many possible scenarios for why, though. I'm inclined to agree that Dumbledore didn't want Fawkes with him on the tower, but I don't know why he would have wanted that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 30, 2006 1:25 am (#966 of 1629)
Well- I'm back to agreeing with Wynnleaf. The us includes Flitwick, at least. In addition, it sounds from above as if Bill, Lupin and Tonks joining them wasn't ordinary, as she mentions it, rather than assuming 'us' meant the teachers and Order as it had all year (by your theory). That is, if it were normal for the Order to patrol, why mention they would be joining them? (T. Vrana)
Well, if I misunderstood wynnleaf - yes, from all your posts on this subject, including what I quoted in my last one, I really thought you were saying no Order members had patrolled inside the castle - or even Aurors inside the castle - before that night, wynnleaf -, then I think you misunderstood me here, T. I have never assumed " 'us' meant the teachers and Order as it had all year". My whole argument in my last few posts has been that we cannot assume Order members have not been in the castle before that night. Not that we can assume they have. There is, for me, no canon proof either way.
And very importantly, the second part (2) of my last post was not related to the first part (1), but was bringing up another point altogether. (Sorry if I did not make this clear, but that's why I separated them.) Note that I did write that the "us" in this case *did not include* the three Order members McGonagall said would be "joining us." I also said that I was curious as to who the "us" within the school were. I still am. I'm open to any opinions on who the "us" was. Who was patrolling the halls that night not counting Minerva and the three Order members brought in?
I still say we do not know for sure that this is the first night the Order members were brought in, as McGonagall's comment does not prove it one way or the other (ie - she didn't say, "And, for the first time, we will be joined by Remus, Bill and Nymphadora") but that relates to Point One of my last post.
Point Two is just curiosity as to who DD had regularly patrolling the school when he was away in Harry's sixth year: that is, the "us" Minerva is referring to. All the teachers maybe? Or just some of them? Flitwick was a duelling champion so he might indeed be valuable in that role. The only teachers who officially belong to the Order are McGonagall and Snape, and Snape cannot be seen to be openly helping DD for obvious reasons so I'm guessing he is not included in the "us". But I'm sure DD has the loyalty of all his teaching staff (Umbridge excepted) and they would do anything for him, including patrolling hallways when he is absent.
And everybody must have known about the Ministry Aurors stationed in Hogsmeade as part of the extra protection DD put on the school since the return of LV. I imagine it made the parents feel better about their kids' safety. So McGonagall might have included them in the "us". Or not. It might just be teachers. (Gosh, I wish she had been more specific. Then I wouldn't have had to ask this question and confuse everybody. - sigh)
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 30, 2006 6:26 am (#967 of 1629)
Laura- she didn't say, "And, for the first time, we will be joined by Remus, Bill and Nymphadora")
She also didn't say, "as usual", so nothing conclusive here, but, she did point out they would be joining them which could indicate that it was not usual.
The much more important clue, to me anyway, was Harry's running into Tonks in the corridor. She tells Harry she is looking for DD. He says his office is the other way. She says I know, he's not in, he's away again. This is clearly a surprise to Tonks, she thought he was there, so I don't think she has been pulled inside when DD is away. Furthermore, she is looking to talk to DD because she's heard of some deaths and is worried and asks Harry is he's received any letters from any Order members (we later learn she's worried about Lupin), so clearly Lupin hasn't been patrolling inside either, he's been away working among the werewolves.
It isn't conclusive, but the evidence suggests Order members, other than McGonogall, have not been patrolling inside when DD is away. We have no suggestion or evidence at all that they have. So I have to lean toward that night being different.
The Aurors weren't mentioned in the fight that night, so I wonder why DD just had teachers and Order members patrolling? Was it M Pomfrey who suggested the Order has a purpose we have not been told? There is an MoM and Aurors, why the need for an OOTP? Why were they patrolling inside, and where were the Aurors that night?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 30, 2006 8:14 am (#968 of 1629)
Tom Proffitt said “Since Fawkes did not come to Dumbledore's aid we are forced to assume that Dumbledore instructed him not not to come to his aid.”
Yes, that's what I think. What is more of a question is whether or not that means that DD would have given this instruction to Fawkes prior to his leaving the castle. After all, there seems to be no point where DD takes a break from talking to Draco and communicates with Fawkes to not come. But we don't know how they communicate, so he could have done so.
By the way, Laura, a few of my recent posts attempted to be clear about the difference being the larger number of Order members and staff patrolling the castle. For instance, I said:
DD seemed to think Draco would make an attempt that night. DD brought in extra Order members, even bringing back Lupin from the werewolf mission, to patrol the castle. (926)
Harry had been checking the Marauder's Map with intense interest for months and had not seen evidence of such a large group of Order members patrolling the inner corridors of the castle. (post 942)
I agree that DD was taking measures to ensure the protection of the castle every time he left. But apparently, in the past, that didn't include bringing in a number of Order members and aurors and having them patrol that particular area within the castle. (post 955)
I think we can assume that DD was telling the truth about protections on the castle. Obviously Tonks was outside the castle when everyone first arrived in September. T Vrana mentioned points that seem to indicate that Tonks had not been patrolling within the castle when DD was away at other times, and that Lupin had not been patrolling in the castle in the past. This does give some slight support to the idea that this was unusual.
But the biggest thing is that Harry was keeping such intensive watch on that particular 7th floor corridor and the RoR, and would have noticed if DD had been having a group of Order members and staff patrolling that area in the past.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Nov 30, 2006 8:31 am (#969 of 1629)
wynnleaf- Yes, that's what I think. What is more of a question is whether or not that means that DD would have given this instruction to Fawkes prior to his leaving the castle. After all, there seems to be no point where DD takes a break from talking to Draco and communicates with Fawkes to not come. But we don't know how they communicate, so he could have done so.
I don' think DD would have locked himself into this position before leaving the castle. Too many variables in play and no way to know how it would all end. If Draco had said yes to DD's offer, for instance, it may have changed the events on the tower. I prefer to think, if he had any 'conversation' with Fawkes at all, (I still think DD summons Fawkes when he needs him, and Fawkes doesn't impose his own will),before leaving the castle, it would have been more like "I may need you later. I'll let you know."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Nov 30, 2006 10:34 am (#970 of 1629)
T, yes it was I who suggested that the Order may have been formed for another reason other than Voldemort. I keep asking myself what was within Hogwarts that Voldemort, who according to Dumbledore has tapped into a lot of the castle’s magic and secrets, was after? And why was Filch checking the students leaving the castle for dark objects? Hogwarts is, according to Hagrid, the safest place to hide something. I feel there may be more to this than horcruxes. Hogwarts is being guarded and I don't think it is just for Harry, Trelawney, and the students safety or why let them visit Hogsmead? Do you see what I mean?
I totally agree that Bill and Lupin joining McGonagall was unusual. Ron said that Bill was there "fighting those maniacs" on Dumbledore's orders. It sounds like Dumbledore knew something might happen and provided extra security that night. He must have believed Harry about Draco and beefed up security, but why would he not tell Harry? And why continue to go on to the cave if he believed Harry. He must have had a plan of some sort to be carried out that particular night because Dumbledore leaving the castle while possibly expecting trouble is odd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 30, 2006 11:37 am (#971 of 1629)
Going back a bit, I want to address the comments I spawned about perspective.
We are not always seeing things from Harry's perspective. There are whole sections of the first book, GoF and HBP where we don't, and we also tend to dissect statements from characters that Harry doesn't even think about. A lot of the tower stuff could be included in that. We certainly have probably all had a moment, where we've said to ourselves, "Harry what are you thinking?"
I'm not talking generally about the fact that people lie to Harry in conversation. I'm talking about the times we get specific information about people, places or things.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 30, 2006 12:57 pm (#972 of 1629)
Die,
Except for the chapters that are written completely outside of Harry's perspective (like the 1st two chapters of HBP), all of the text is written from Harry's perspective. That is, while it isn't 1st person, we only see what Harry sees. We only hear what Harry hears, and he is the only character whose inner thoughts are narrated to us.
Because of that, the narration for the most part follows everything the way Harry interprets it. So if Harry "heard" a person say something "gently," then that's the way the narration describes it. If Harry interprets someone else's comment as being said "sarcastically," then that is the way the narration goes. In other words, every description that we see is the description that Harry affirms. The only times we get something different is when another character openly contradicts Harry. Or, we can read between the lines and try to get a more objective "take" on an incident, by looking just at the actual events and actions, without the accompanying descriptives.
I'm not trying to say that every descriptive word in the text is suspect, simply because it is Harry's point of view. But in a way, that's true. The thing is, most of what Harry sees and hears he's able to take in from a more-or-less objective point of view, and therefore we can trust his view of it. On the other hand, there are areas where Harry just can't be objective, for various reasons, or where Harry simply hasn't got the factual knowledge to understand what's going on. At that point, we cannot necessarily trust the text descriptives, because we're still getting things from Harry's point of view and Harry isn't able to interpret objectively or with full knowledge.
This is the crux of the "unreliable narrator" device. The reader identifies with the protagonist and ceases to take into account that all of the narration is done from only one character's perspective. The reader trusts the protagonist so much that the reader comes to believe that whatever the protagonist thinks he sees or hears, or however the protagonist interprets events, is probably true.
However, the author has to be careful in the use of this device and not deceive the reader so much that the reader can no longer "buy into" the plot, the action, or the characters. The idea is to get the reader to agree with the protagonist as much as possible, so that when the protagonist is surprised, so is the reader. But on the other hand, the reader has to be able to trust most of the perceptions of the protagonist. Generally a reader can accept (when the "all is revealed" part occurs), that the protagonist had some biases, or gaps in knowledge that caused him to be fooled, and therefore contributed to the reader being fooled. But the reader probably won't accept a protagonist who turns out to have been wrong on all manner of things, particularly unobservant, and ignorantly making too many assumptions which the reader had been strung along into following.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Nov 30, 2006 6:01 pm (#973 of 1629)
I'm not trying to say that every descriptive word in the text is suspect, simply because it is Harry's point of view.
Ah, wynnleaf, quite frequently - all over this Forum - it seems that that is exactly what you are doing!
Now, having said that, - and because I really do try to be as fair and even-handed and "objective" (even though there is no such thing as being completely so, since we all come with our own baggage) as I can when looking at all characters and situations in the series -, I am going to categorically state that even if you are saying what I have quoted above, that does not mean you are incorrect.
Maybe - and I am serious about this, although I do not at all personally believe it at this point in the HP series - "every descriptive word in the text *is* suspect, simply because it's Harry's point of view."
And maybe those of us - including myself - who do largely believe and trust Harry Potter, at least most of the time (except for his totally black-and-white view of Snape, of course) - Believe and trust him even if only for the simple reason that Jo made him her hero and loves him, and why would she make her hero either a liar, delusional or frequently wrong? Isn't he, by her own choice, the number one good guy? Something *I*, as one who deeply cares about and even loves, in a maternal way, the person Harry Potter, have 100 per cent bought into since PS and still do! - maybe we might be proved very, very, wrong in Book Seven.
I really enjoyed your last post, by the way.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 30, 2006 6:59 pm (#974 of 1629)
I'm not trying to say that every descriptive word in the text is suspect, simply because it is Harry's point of view. (wynnleaf)
Ah, wynnleaf, quite frequently - all over this Forum - it seems that that is exactly what you are doing! (Laura W)
I do believe I confine my distrust of Harry's point of view to his areas and characters of primary bias and areas where he probably lacks factual knowledge (such as what DD was up to the night he was AK'd).
And maybe those of us - including myself - who do largely believe and trust Harry Potter, at least most of the time (except for his totally black-and-white view of Snape, of course) - Believe and trust him even if only for the simple reason that Jo made him her hero and loves him, and why would she make her hero either a liar, delusional or frequently wrong? Isn't he, by her own choice, the number one good guy? Something *I*, as one who deeply cares about and even loves, in a maternal way, the person Harry Potter, have 100 per cent bought into since PS and still do! - maybe we might be proved very very wrong in Book Seven. (Laura)
A writer may use an extreme degree of the unreliable narrator device even on a very likeable, intelligent, and sympathetic protagonist. For instance, if you've ever seen the film "The Sixth Sense," M Night Shyamalan surely must have liked his protagonist. The protagonist had the best of intentions, was highly intelligent, etc. But we discovered at the end that the protagonist was fundamentally wrong about a great deal of his own situation. This didn't make our "hero" less of a great character. Most viewers are totally deluded and taken in by the point of view of the protagonist. The final revelations are absolutely excellent!
But even though it turned out that the protagonist was very wrong about a most basic element of his situation, he was still very right about many other things, such as his young patient's needs, his own desire to help others, etc.
Similarly, Jane Austen (whose unreliable narrator reader deceptions JKR thinks of very highly), usually has her protagonist be quite wrong about several characters and situations. Yet her protagonists are generally very intelligent, witty, and good characters, usually with the best of intentions.
What I'm trying to point out is that JKR can love Harry, and make him a really great hero, and still make his point of view fundamentally wrong in several areas.
By the way, the unreliable narrator device only very rarely means that the protagonist is lying. That would be particularly difficult when the protagonist is the only one whose inner thoughts are revealed. One of the rare examples where Harry's intentionally deceptive actions fool the reader into thinking something occurred that really did not is when Harry fooled Ron into thinking he'd given him Felix Felicis. The only reason that was able to trick the reader, as well as Ron, is because we didn't get to see much of Harry's thoughts at that point. But in general, it doesn't work for the protagonist in this kind of point of view to lie in such a way that the reader believes the lie.
And you're right that the author cannot make the protagonist so frequently wrong that the reader learns to not trust his point of view. That defeats the entire point of the unreliable narrator device. The reader has to learn to trust the protagonist's "take" on most things, in order for the author to manipulate the reader's trust and fool the reader.
I really enjoyed your last post, by the way.
Thanks!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Nov 30, 2006 8:56 pm (#975 of 1629)
The things I'm referring to are more factual things. I'm talking about things that ARE factual knowledge, not motives. I'm not trying to figure out if someone was sympathetic to Harry because they spoke gently. I'm saying...oh, God, what's an example that I've been debating somewhere lately?
Okay...If Riddle told Harry that Ginny stole the diary back because she was afraid of the diary telling Harry her secrets, I believe that. Others do not. On the Ginny thread I was told Riddle had to be lying, and Ginny had to have stolen the diary back because she loved Harry and didn't want him to have something dangerous.
I don't want to have to think about what it would be like if every bit of information I get could be a lie. That would make the whole series an exercise in frustration, not just the motives of certain characters, which are complicated enough.
When Dumbledore said Bellatrix used the Cruciatus curse on Neville's parents until they lost their minds. I believed him. I didn't wait for Bella to admit it before I thought it was true.
And I firmly reject the idea that Harry is seeing everything we are seeing. If he was, Jo wouldn't put in whole chapters that are OUT of his point of view. The book would be written saying "I then went to Snape's office" or something like that, and THEN it would be his point of view as far as I'm concerned.
What's the name for this? I've been out of college since 1977, and my mind's gone blank, drat it! But it's definitely NOT first person.
Last edited by Lady Arabella on Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 976 to 1000
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:40 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Nov 30, 2006 9:49 pm (#976 of 1629)
Die said:
And I firmly reject the idea that Harry is seeing everything we are seeing. If he was, Jo wouldn't put in whole chapters that are OUT of his point of view. The book would be written saying "I then went to Snape's office" or something like that, and THEN it would be his point of view as far as I'm concerned.
Die, most of the HP series is written in 3rd person limited point of view. Here's a quote from wikipedia that gives a brief summary of points of view in literature.
Most novels are narrated either in the first person, in "third person omniscient", or in "third person limited". A third person omniscient narrator can shift focus from character to character with knowledge of everyone's thoughts and of events of which no single character would be aware. The third person limited point of view picks one character and follows him or her around for the duration of the book. The narrator may be more observant than the character, but is limited to what that one character could theoretically observe.
As regards unreliable narrators, here's another explanation:
In literature and film, an unreliable narrator (a term coined by Wayne C. Booth in his 1961 book The Rhetoric of Fiction[1]) is a literary device in which the credibility of the narrator, either first-person or third-person, is seriously compromised. This unreliability can be due to psychological instability or other disability, a powerful bias, a lack of knowledge, or even a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader/audience. The nature of the narrator is sometimes immediately clear, though a more dramatic use of the device delays the revelation until near the story's end, resulting in a significant realignment of the point of view from which the reader/audience thought they had been experiencing the story. Sometimes the narrator's unreliability is only hinted at, either at the beginning or end of the story, resulting in ambiguity in the reader/audience's mind as to how the story should be interpreted.
Many unreliable narrations are in stories told from the point of view of a child, because a young and inexperienced person will not necessarily understand what they are experiencing like an adult character. Huckleberry Finn is a good example.
Most of Harry Potter is told through 3rd person limited, and since he is a child, with less experience in many things, it makes sense that some of the narration from his point of view would be inaccurate.
Die, you said,” Okay...If Riddle told Harry that Ginny stole the diary back because she was afraid of the diary telling Harry her secrets, I believe that. Others do not. On the Ginny thread I was told Riddle had to be lying, and Ginny had to have stolen the diary back because she loved Harry and didn't want him to have something dangerous. I don't want to have to think about what it would be like if every bit of information I get could be a lie. That would make the whole series an exercise in frustration, not just the motives of certain characters, which are complicated enough.”
My personal rule of thumb is that I'd consider a piece of information to be correct if 1. it's really difficult to see JKR correcting this piece of info in Book 7, and 2. there's no particular reason to suspect the source of the info.
So as regards the diary (simply as an example) -- I don't think JKR will come back in book 7 and tell us some other "real" reason for Ginny's actions, although since Ginny still talks to Harry, that is remotely possible. But on the other hand, Riddle is not necessarily a reliable source, so that has to be considered.
JKR has told us that she sometimes uses Hermione and Dumbledore to give us true info -- reliable information is what I understand her to mean. She has not said this about other characters, however. Why would she make a point of telling us this about Hermione and DD, if we could trust any character's information?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 30, 2006 10:25 pm (#977 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, thanks for posting that information about point of view and unreliable narration. It clarifies some important things for me.
Some good horror stories employ this narration, and you don't find out the narrator is a monster or a murderer until they do something horrible. Those can be quite fun!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 1, 2006 5:56 am (#978 of 1629)
I'm thoroughly on wynnleaf's side in this discussion.
Jo Rowling has no intention of ever giving the reader perfect information. The information is almost always colored by someone's point of view. The less we are told about something the less we can trust that information, it is only after seeing things occur numerous times or be thoroughly discussed that we can feel we have a good understanding of it.
The way that the Unbreakable Vow works is suspect knowledge because we have had only one explanation by an inexperienced wizard and have seen it cast once, but have never seen the results. We can make some pretty good guesses as to how it works, but we cannot be certain.
On the other hand we have very little doubt as to how a Summoning Charm works.
What this means is that we can make some pretty good guesses about the plot based on our limited knowledge of the Unbreakable Vow, but we can't expect to be exactly right. And what it means for this thread is that we have numerous plot lines running together and all of them have been subject to the fact our knowledge of them is not as good as we would like it to be. I've heard some good guesses about where the plot is going, but no one can convince me they have "The Answer." Our information just isn't good enough.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2006 7:30 am (#979 of 1629)
The way that the Unbreakable Vow works is suspect knowledge because we have had only one explanation by an inexperienced wizard and have seen it cast once, but have never seen the results. We can make some pretty good guesses as to how it works, but we cannot be certain.
I disagree. Adamantly. Rowling needs to convey information about how certain things work. Ron is a member of the Wizarding World with an intelligent father whom he pays attention to. If Ron says "it works like this", rather than "I bet it works like this", then we have a good idea that this information is accurate. Rowling is giving us information on how a spell works. Unless that information is a State Secret, the small amount of information she provides will be accurate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 8:04 am (#980 of 1629)
While there's a good discussion about the Vow on the Snape thread, I'd like to just point out that this is a good example of how an author can lead the reader into assumptions that aren't true (of course, I don't know that JKR has done this, but it would be easy).
Through Ron, JKR had the reader learn that an unbreakable vow is a vow that if you break it you die. We don't learn anything else from Ron. We're told he has this information due to an incident when he was 5. JKR has never said that she sometimes speaks through Ron, although we do sometimes learn tidbits about the WW through Ron's comments, so his information about the Vow could certainly be true, but we've never been specifically told that we can trust Ron's "facts."
But it's easy for an author to fool the reader this way. The reader starts to assume an awful lot from Ron's statement. When I read various fan sites, it seems to me that the prevailing notion is that breaking the Vow results in immediately dropping dead, and that the Vow simply "knows" all by itself -- with no decision by another party. But JKR didn't give us any of that information. It's just assumptions of the readers. But what JKR did do was have a trusted character give Harry some information which Ron says as though it's all the information you need to know. In other words, Ron doesn't add, "I don't really know how it works, or how you die, I just know you can die from it." So this odd assumption is unspoken, but still exists that somehow Ron's comment is enough for the reader to interpret exactly what will happen to Snape if he doesn't AK DD on the tower.
Yet no where did JKR ever tell us enough to make this a certainty. She leads us to assume it, through Ron's sketchy comments of a memory from his early childhood.
IF JKR has fooled us through the Vow, is it fair? Well, if it turns out that you don't die at all from it, then no it isn't "fair." But if it turns out that there are lots of extenuating circumstances that Ron didn't know about, such as a bonder having to decide when the Vow is completed, or that you can trick the Vow, or some other loophole, then yes, that would be fair. Because it would just be JKR having manipulated our assumptions, but not actually lied to us by having Ron be wrong in his comments.
Does that mean that JKR has lied to us every time a character is wrong in their "facts?" No. But in the case of Ron's comments on the Vow, so much of the plot and the reader's understanding of circumstances becomes invested in this "fact," that to have the fact be completely wrong would probably be an unfair deception of the author.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2006 8:23 am (#981 of 1629)
But what JKR did do was have a trusted character give Harry some information which Ron says as though it's all the information you need to know.
I suspect that is because that is all the information we need to know. If a good storyteller wishes to trick her readers, then the trick will lie in what they do know, not in what they don't. Willfully withholding vital information about how something works doesn't result in fooling your audience. There is no trick.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 8:50 am (#982 of 1629)
I suspect that is because that is all the information we need to know. If a good storyteller wishes to trick her readers, then the trick will lie in what they do know, not in what they don't. Willfully withholding vital information about how something works doesn't result in fooling your audience. (Mrs Brisbee)
Huh? Withholding vital information about how something works can't fool the audience? JKR has withheld loads of information from the readers in earlier books, and given explanations later that were sometimes big surprises and sometimes small surprises.
If most readers now come away thinking that Snape would have dropped down dead from not completing the Vow, and that no other person like the bonder was necessary to decide the Vow, and that you can't trick the Vow -- then if JKR turns up in book 7 and shows us that the bonder decides when the Vow is completed or some other such additional aspect to the Vow, then I'd have to say such a trick did work -- in spades.
The only added challenge would be for JKR to get the readers to appreciate that they'd been tricked, rather than feel cheated.
As regards this particular thread, if JKR has withheld all sorts of interesting information about DD having taking a Draught of Living Death, or carrying a horcrux that Snape destroyed with the AK, or that he was actually dying all through HBP or had his death "stoppered" (whatever that means), or Snape's AK wasn't a full-blown real AK, or any number of other pieces of information that could have been withheld from us -- then I suspect that most people will be quite surprised and JKR's tricks will have been most successful.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2006 9:00 am (#983 of 1629)
Harry asks Ron what happens when you break the Unbreakable Vow:
“You die,” said Ron simply. "Fred and George tried to get me to make one when I was about five. I nearly did too, I was holding hands with Fred and everything when Dad found us. He went mental," said Ron, with a reminiscent gleam in his eyes. "Only time I've seen Dad as angry as Mum. Fred reckons his left buttock has never been the same since."--(HBP, Ch 16, "A Very Frosty Christmas")
People believe what they do about the Unbreakable Vow because the information comes from a reliable source: Ron.
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that Ron is unreliable for information. Especially about how something works in the Wizarding World. Is there anything in the six books that demonstrates that he is an unreliable source for this sort of information? Especially when he is getting it from his father, whom Ron pays attention to?
Moreover, much has been made of Ron being only five, and therefore he must have a faulty memory. Not only does it sound like there are certain aspects of this memory that make it indelible (father going ballistic, danger of death), but the buttock comment shows that it hasn't been a taboo subject for all these years, either. It has been discussed since then. Ron isn't Harry-- he doesn't live under a "don't ask questions" stricture, so he is free to talk about this stuff with his family.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2006 9:17 am (#984 of 1629)
Huh? Withholding vital information about how something works can't fool the audience?—wynnleaf
No, it can't. Because then the audience isn't fooled, they are just uninformed.
JKR has withheld loads of information from the readers in earlier books, and given explanations later that were sometimes big surprises and sometimes small surprises.
I'm not sure we are talking about the same literary trick here. Can you give an example of what you mean?
If most readers now come away thinking that Snape would have dropped down dead from not completing the Vow, and that no other person like the bonder was necessary to decide the Vow, and that you can't trick the Vow -- then if JKR turns up in book 7 and shows us that the bonder decides when the Vow is completed or some other such additional aspect to the Vow, then I'd have to say such a trick did work -- in spades.
Only if the trick is based on information that we have. Ron says that if the person breaks the Vow, they die, not that the bonder decides if they die.
The only added challenge would be for JKR to get the readers to appreciate that they'd been tricked, rather than feel cheated.
Which in this case would be a real challenge.
As regards this particular thread, if JKR has withheld all sorts of interesting information about DD having taking a Draught of Living Death, or carrying a horcrux that Snape destroyed with the AK, or that he was actually dying all through HBP or had his death "stoppered" (whatever that means), or Snape's AK wasn't a full-blown real AK, or any number of other pieces of information that could have been withheld from us -- then I suspect that most people will be quite surprised and JKR's tricks will have been most successful.
Only if the trick makes sense. It has to tally with the information we have been given previously.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 1, 2006 9:57 am (#985 of 1629)
It's not about "tricking" the reader. It's about giving the reader enough information to grasp what is happening in the plot.
It is not Jo Rowling's practice to give the reader indisputable fact. She filters information through Harry's understanding, Harry's ability to ask the right questions when needed (and many times he doesn't), and through the understanding of the person giving the information to Harry.
Jo has told us that it is important to know why Dumbledore had James's Invisibility Cloak. Harry never thought to ask Dumbledore about this. Has Jo tricked us? Not really, it wasn't in the nature of the characters to seek out this information.
As regards the Unbreakable Vow, Harry believes he has all of the information that he needs and Ron believes that he has given him all of the information that he needs. We, the readers, should not assume that they are correct. It most likely is not correct because we lack two critical pieces of information, we do not know what "triggers" the death and we do not know how the "victim" dies. We can make some educated guesses, but they would only be guesses. Is it unfair to withhold this knowledge from the reader? No, I don't believe that it is, because it is critical that the reader understand Harry's view of Severus Snape and to have only the information that Harry has. Right now we actually have more information than Harry as we saw the Vow performed. It would, in my opinion, be unfair to the reader if we did know exactly how it worked, because then we would know whether or not Snape was good or evil, rather than merely have theories about it.
For any Mystery Plot to work it is vital that the reader be ignorant about some things. It is the author's responsibility to give us enough information to form good hypotheses, but not enough to know for certain until the protagonist has the same information.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Dec 1, 2006 9:57 am (#986 of 1629)
As regards this particular thread, if JKR has withheld all sorts of interesting information about DD having taking a Draught of Living Death,...then I suspect that most people will be quite surprised and JKR's tricks will have been most successful. (some text removed as this does not apply to all possible theories)
I do see one difference between the Vow and this scenario (Draught). We have heard about the Draught twice, and from Potions Masters and a potions book, and we know certain details:
1) It looks like water
2) It is a sleeping potion so powerful that it has the name Draught of Living Death.
In this scenario, the trick is that DD is not really dead because he drank something we have been told about twice. If it is true, we weren't really tricked, IMHO, we just didn't pay attention to the clues. (But I can see how you would call it tricked, but not unfair).
With the Vow, we have only one source of information, Ron, and we only know one possible fact, you die if you break it. We don't know anything else. So, if Snape were to break it and not drop dead, we would all want more info about the Vow. Was Ron wrong? Are there limits to what you can make a vower do? Are there ways to fool the vow? Does the bonder need to get involved? Does the vower need to know what he vowed to? In this case it is a lack of information that might 'fool' us into making assumptions, and then want more details if those assumptions are wrong. Unfair? Not really, IMO, if the explaination is believable.
On the other hand, if DD did take Draught of Living Death, no one could say that they were tricked by a lack of information. Even if we don't know how it works exactly, we know enough to accept this if Jo did it.
Hope that makes sense....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 11:33 am (#987 of 1629)
Good posts, Tom and T Vrana. I agree.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Dec 1, 2006 11:41 am (#988 of 1629)
TomProffitt says "For any Mystery Plot to work it is vital that the reader be ignorant about some things. It is the author's responsibility to give us enough information to form good hypotheses, but not enough to know for certain until the protagonist has the same information."
I'm not sure that I agree. Having read a fair amount of Agatha Christie, and other mysteries, I think that they only work if the author has given us all of the information that we need. The reader just has not had it presented in a way that makes it obvious.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 11:54 am (#989 of 1629)
Steve said:
Having read a fair amount of Agatha Christie, and other mysteries, I think that they only work if the author has given us all of the information that we need. The reader just has not had it presented in a way that makes it obvious.
Since we're dealing with a 7 book series here, I think it's a little different. There are some things that JKR always presents before she springs their surprise usage on us. So we are always shown the various potions, spells, magical devices, etc. that will come into play in the climactic scenes in any book. Further, we are always given hints and clues about what the outcomes will be -- who will be the traitor or other twists. But that does not mean that JKR gives us everything up front.
For instance, until book 6 we were never told anything about horcruxes. We had no idea why LV had not been completely destroyed when he tried to kill Harry.
There's a great deal that JKR has clearly been holding back about Snape. We suspect a lot of things, but it's almost all based on circumstantial evidence, or from what JKR hasn't shown us.
Readers guessed for some time how DD traveled back and forth to London, how adult wizards communicated, etc. We saw the carriages move without apparently anything pulling them for 4 books before we were finally told about thestrals.
And we have to remember, we haven't finished the series. JKR can continue to give clues throughout Book 7 until she reaches the final revelation phase. Just because we don't have all the information now doesn't mean that it won't come.
If you stopped an Agatha Christie book in the middle, and leapt to the final chapter, you would find that you'd missed a lot of important clues that the writer had intended you to pick up before the end. HBP is only half-way between the "full" book of 6/7, so I would not expect that we'd have been given all the clues needed in the first half of the book.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 1, 2006 12:03 pm (#990 of 1629)
Since we're dealing with a 7 book series here, I think it's a little different. --- wynnleaf
I concur. Rowling is essentially writing eight stories, not seven. The mysteries regarding Dumbledore's death & the Vow, while they have significant impact in HBP, are really about that eighth story, the one which covers all of the books not just the final one (or the 6th). I trust Rowling to fill in the missing spaces in our knowledge prior to the end of the series, but I also have no doubt that we do have blanks in our knowledge and that some of what we think we know may be incorrect.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Dec 1, 2006 5:47 pm (#991 of 1629)
I still have to believe Ron because to me, that is what he is there for...to be the person from a pureblood fmaily, who has grown up with magic all around him, with a father in the Minsitry, who can tell Harry what the wizarding world is like. So if Snape broke the vow by not killing Dumbledore when Draco could not, I think it's quite likely he would have died. Which is something Dumbledore would not have wanted.
Snape was literally in pain when Harry called him a coward. Harry himself compares him to yelping, howling Fang, trapped in Hagrid's burning hut. I think it's partly because he did what he had to do and killed Dumbledore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 1, 2006 9:29 pm (#992 of 1629)
Just to jump in, I have to go along with Die and Mrs. Brisbee here. Avada Kadavra works because the caster says the spell points the wand and bam, you're dead. What we didn't know about it is that the caster had to really mean it. I don't feel tricked about that. Ron basically quotes his dad about the Vow and is told if broken you die. Just exactally how or by who doesn't change the fact that you die. Now if we find out that the caster could change that, and the victim possibly could not die, that is tricking the reader. Snape's possible out on the tower with Dumbledore is if he didn't mean it then DD wouldn't have died. That isn't a trick, because we knew that information.
Let me also add that it is after midnight, and my thought cdould well not made much sense. For that I humbly apologize. If I was clear, then I will just say thanks.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Dec 2, 2006 2:10 am (#993 of 1629)
And, needless to say, from my recent posts on this and the Severus Snape thread (where I, too, said I have no reason not to believe Ron, etc.), I stand with Mrs. Brisbee, Die Zimtzicke and Thom Matheson.
I did not get a degree in English Literature or anything like some of you, but I have been a voracious reader all my life (I'm not quite as old as our dear Kip, but ...), which should count for a bit.
I know that some books have surprise endings and twists and such but, for the most part, in order for a book to have any credibility it seems to me the reader has got to believe what is written. Information can be passed on by the author in two ways: the narrative telling the reader what is happening by describing it, and the characters telling the reader what is happening through dialogue. This does not, of course, mean that every single character is telling the truth in every word he or she says. For that matter, an author can deliberately write in a character who is a consumate liar (eg - Lockhart).
But the reader has to believe that what the author tells her or him is happening is happening and that what the characters say is fact (within the limitations of human ... well, limitations: ignorance, prejudice, emotion, etc.). Otherwise, in my opinion, all credibility is lost. How can the reader suspend disbelief - vital in successful fiction - when he or she cannot believe anything he or she is being told in the book (i.e. - through it being described or a character saying it)?
And when two characters contradict each other, it is up to me to decide - looking at all factors - whose version I believe based on how I see that person. How that person has acted throughout the book, how reliable I feel they are, their ethics in terms of prior actions, thought and speech, etc.
I begin a piece of fiction on the assumption that what I am reading is true. (I do not, by the way, read fantasy or science fiction - by preference.) I *know* it's not true, as it is fiction, but it has to be written as if it is a true story with real people in it for me to care about the book. And how can I do that if I am suspicious of everything that is presented as fact and everything the author is telling me through her characters' voices? Or even a good chunk of the things?
It is true that I might find out later that a few of the things the writer has described turn out to be untrue when additional information is revealed. That's fine. Fun, even.
But if I had to read a novel always thinking, "This paragraph says David Copperfield went out and the sun was shining. Was it really shining or does he just imagine it is because he wants it to be?" - just to use a silly example -, then forget it! I have to believe that the author is saying the sun is shining because he or she is telling the readers that the sun is shining; that it's an absolute fact in the world of that novel!!
Again, this does not mean that there will not be twists in the plot (a good thing, if carefully and sparingly done - as Jo does brilliantly), and/or new surprising evidence introduced (again, a good device if carefully, sparingly and believeably done - as Jo does); but ... Holy Hippogriffs! If I could not believe that, to a large extent, Jo is telling us the truth through her narration of events as they have unfolded over the last 16 years and through the words of her characters, then these books are big cheats in my eyes. And I refuse to see them that way.
What we do not know which will come to light in Book Seven is great fun to speculate on. But that is different from saying we cannot believe a lot of what we have been told in the books, simply because we are following Harry around.
Anyway, sorry about the rant. Don't know if any of it made sense to anyone but me. Getting too emotional here. (breathe, Laura!) Maybe time for me to move over to a less intense thread for a couple of days.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 2, 2006 5:26 am (#994 of 1629)
How can the reader suspend disbelief - vital in successful fiction - when he or she cannot believe anything he or she is being told in the book .... --- Laura W
We (or at least I) are not proposing that everything is suspect. We are saying that everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Some information, obviously, is more reliable than others. To use your example, characters are unlikely to mistaken about the weather. Conversely whenever characters have to form judgments (whether we're talking about trust or beauty) we have to understand that we're receiving the characters opinion, for example Harry describes Pansy Parkinson as "pug faced" but we really don't know if this makes her unattractive or not, we only know how Harry feels.
When it comes to the Unbreakable Vow it is very hard for us to judge what is taking place in the story for two reasons. We don't know Draco's Task. We don't know precisely how the Vow works. Rowling has set us a mystery that we can expect to have explained over the course of Book 7. Based on the amount of information we have right now we can only guess at how it will unfold.
I think of the issue as explaining a complicated sports rule (like "icing" in Ice Hockey) we know the general information to be able to watch the game (you can't shoot the puck the full length of the ice) but we don't know the specifics (blue lines, end lines, touching up the puck, and where the face off goes). I don't know if any of the specifics of The Unbreakable Vow are important to the plot, but I'm pretty certain that it's too early to assume that they are irrelevant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 6:20 am (#995 of 1629)
Tom, in the case of the Vow, I agree with you about some lack of information regarding Snape’s Vow, but as I see it there are only a few things that will happen now regarding that particular bonding.
1) Snape will die. (he didn't live up to the promise, and as Arthur said, you die)
2) Snape lives. (because he did do what he promised to do, and Arthur is still correct).
3) Snape lives. (because the bonder chose to allow him to, and Arthur lied to Ron and eventually us).
I can't see any other choices here. Either 1 or 2 still validates Ron's explanation to us and we can take JKR for fact. If the outcome is 3, why would Rowling even bring it up? Why devote an entire chapter to the vow only to find out that death has a loophole in an Unbreakable Vow?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 2, 2006 7:19 am (#996 of 1629)
Thom,
Fourth option: The bonder doesn't decide if you die. The bonder is the one who acknowledges whether or not the Vow was completed. Arthur never told Ron exactly how the Vow worked, other than the basic "death if not fulfilled," so Arthur never lied at all (don't know where you got the notion that Ron's knowledge being incomplete means Arthur lied). Snape didn't fulfill the Vow, but doesn't die because the bonder (Bellatrix) dies without ever knowing that in fact Snape didn't fulfill the Vow.
Tom, excellent post and explanations.
Laura, I think the example of "Emma" -- the book JKR claimed as her own "standard" for surprise twists -- would be good. In "Emma" the protagonist believes she knows a great deal about the people around her. She's likeable, with good intentions, and quite intelligent. But she believes that she knows more about other people than she in fact does know. She's usually wrong, but in a few instances, the reader is meant to think she's quite right -- particularly in the case of her friend Frank Church, who is a sort of dandified gentleman. Frank joins her in making some snide remarks about a Jane Fairchild, a poor but honorable young woman who Emma is somewhat jealous of. Frank agrees with Emma's frequent comments about Jane and even joins Emma in making fun of Jane in her presence. The reader believes completely that Frank is quite sincere (that's not really the word I guess) in his criticisms and other remarks about Jane. Then at one point, Frank takes a trip to London in order to get his hair cut. This seems like a very in-character action for such a dandy, so the reader (and Emma) completely buy into it. But it's not true. In fact, Frank went to London to purchase a piano for poor Jane who is a talented musician, but can't afford her own instrument. What neither Emma nor the reader know is that, far from disliking Jane or seeing her as a figure of fun, Frank is in love with her and they are secretly engaged. This only comes out at the end and is generally quite surprising to the readers who were meant to completely accept that what they'd been told about Frank (through Emma's point of view) was true. Far from feeling cheated, this is a great twist that really works. And JKR seems to consider it a great piece of authorial deception.
I begin a piece of fiction on the assumption that what I am reading is true. (Laura W)
After the first couple of books, I begin each Harry Potter book knowing that JKR is going to be deceiving me somewhere. The only question is where.
What we do not know which will come to light in Book Seven is great fun to speculate on. But that is different from saying we cannot believe a lot of what we have been told in the books, simply because we are following Harry around. (Laura W)
But no one is saying that we can't believe most of what we've been told. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a lot of what we have been told." I certainly think that at least 90% of the information and descriptions in the books were accurate, maybe even more. They have to be, or the reader would question everything. The author needs the reader to trust that information and the descriptions, or the author will never be able to surprise the reader.
I realize you only used the weather example as a simple, trivial example. But the fact is, the Unbreakable Vow is not trivial at all. We have to expect that if JKR is going to misdirect the reader, it's not going to be over trivialities. Although there may by things that appear trivial (like Frank Church's trip to London for a haircut in Emma), which are not trivial at all and misdirection is taking place.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 9:20 am (#997 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- (smiling) What did you mean? I didn't get the Bella part. I have read your thought 3 times and I still don't get it. Please explain further. Sorry for my thick condition.
What I meant is that if the vow is not fulfilled a death takes place. That to me is what Ron was saying about Arthur's explanation. Whether or not the spell "knows that it has to be fulfilled" could explain how someone would die. But I take Ron's explanation at truth. If JKR recants herself later about "conditions" that must be met to include death, that would be the lie I was talking about. As I said we have an entire chapter setting the stage for this confrontation on the tower and the ONLY explanation of the severity of not fulfilling the vow is Arthur's through Ron.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 2, 2006 10:34 am (#998 of 1629)
Thom, you said earlier:
“As I see it there are only a few things that will happen now regarding that particular bonding.
1) Snape will die. (he didn't live up to the promise, and as Arthur said, you die)
2) Snape lives. (because he did do what he promised to do, and Arthur is still correct).
3) Snape lives. (because the bonder chose to allow him to, and Arthur lied to Ron and eventually us).
I thought your choice three assumed that the "bonder chooses to allow Snape to live -- as though there's an option for the bonder to choose that Snape live regardless of fulfilling the vow or not. I was theorizing another possibility where the bonder does not "decide" whether or not Snape lives or dies. The bonder is simply the holder of the promise, in the sense that when the bonder sees that the vow is fulfilled or broken, the vow is either ended, or the penalty takes effect. Otherwise, why have a bonder at all? Anyway, in that case, Snape could not fulfill the vow and as long as Bellatrix never knew that he'd avoided fulfilling it, the bonder couldn't see the Vow as broken, thereby involking the penalty. I'm not necessarily backing this theory, I'm must pointing out that there are alternatives that don't include Arthur lying about anything.
What I meant is that if the vow is not fulfilled a death takes place. That to me is what Ron was saying about Arthur's explanation.
But the huge assumption here is that just because Ron says a death takes place, that somehow the reader has been told how it comes about. Ron never says how or why the death takes place -- nothing about the person dropping dead as soon as the vow is broken, or what the bonder is for, not anything really. All those assumptions that the person making the Vow automatically drops dead are just that -- assumptions. Arthur (as far as we know) said nothing about that, nor did Ron. In fact, it's not even implied. But what is happening is that the reader is set up to assume that this is what happens. We assume it because we aren't given further information so we tend to settle for the simplest guess -- break vow, fall down dead. But no where did Ron, or Arthur say that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 12:52 pm (#999 of 1629)
Got it, thank you. So here we are back to square one. Oh cripes, welcome to the Lexicon. If JKR explains all of these things to us in the last book, we won't see it ‘til 2010, and it will be 3000 pages long.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 3, 2006 8:09 pm (#1000 of 1629)
All those assumptions that the person making the Vow automatically drops dead are just that -- assumptions. Arthur (as far as we know) said nothing about that, nor did Ron. In fact, it's not even implied. But what is happening is that the reader is set up to assume that this is what happens. We assume it because we aren't given further information so we tend to settle for the simplest guess -- break vow, fall down dead. But nowhere did Ron, or Arthur say that. – wynnleaf
I'd also like to turn that around: all that speculation that the Vow is a lot more complicated than Ron said it was is just that-- speculation. This is a problem I have with this, that we are entering into Pure Speculationville. There is nothing wrong with speculating, it can be fun, but let's call it what it is. I prefer to see some sort of hints or evidence that we should question something in the story before deciding it's an untrusty bit of information simply because it exists. So again:
... What happens if you break it, then?
“You die,” said Ron simply. -- (HBP, Ch 16, "A Very Frosty Christmas")
Can't get much more simple or straightforward then that. What triggers the Vow? When you break it. What will happen? You die. Maybe we're just so used to things in Rowling's universe being complicated that it's hard to accept something so straightforward, but there it is.
It actually doesn't even matter if you drop down dead immediately or if you contract an incurable disease and slowly waste away over the next twelve months (although I'm betting on the former). You're still going to die.
I can't even remember why we were speculating on this point. It seems to me that there are all sorts of weird things that need explanations, with definite incongruities that surround them, and we're off an a tangent suspecting straightforward information. Why is it so important that the Unbreakable Vow be way more complicated than it was presented? Is it so Snape has an out? If so, I feel we should be working the other way around, and building a theory to fit the clues, not clues to fit a theory.
If JKR explains all of these things to us in the last book. we won't see it ‘til 2010, and it will be 3000 pages long. --Thom Matheson
Lol, I would love a 3000 page book-- but not if it's 2000 pages of explanation about things that could have been explained clearly in previous books!
wynnleaf - Nov 30, 2006 9:49 pm (#976 of 1629)
Die said:
And I firmly reject the idea that Harry is seeing everything we are seeing. If he was, Jo wouldn't put in whole chapters that are OUT of his point of view. The book would be written saying "I then went to Snape's office" or something like that, and THEN it would be his point of view as far as I'm concerned.
Die, most of the HP series is written in 3rd person limited point of view. Here's a quote from wikipedia that gives a brief summary of points of view in literature.
Most novels are narrated either in the first person, in "third person omniscient", or in "third person limited". A third person omniscient narrator can shift focus from character to character with knowledge of everyone's thoughts and of events of which no single character would be aware. The third person limited point of view picks one character and follows him or her around for the duration of the book. The narrator may be more observant than the character, but is limited to what that one character could theoretically observe.
As regards unreliable narrators, here's another explanation:
In literature and film, an unreliable narrator (a term coined by Wayne C. Booth in his 1961 book The Rhetoric of Fiction[1]) is a literary device in which the credibility of the narrator, either first-person or third-person, is seriously compromised. This unreliability can be due to psychological instability or other disability, a powerful bias, a lack of knowledge, or even a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader/audience. The nature of the narrator is sometimes immediately clear, though a more dramatic use of the device delays the revelation until near the story's end, resulting in a significant realignment of the point of view from which the reader/audience thought they had been experiencing the story. Sometimes the narrator's unreliability is only hinted at, either at the beginning or end of the story, resulting in ambiguity in the reader/audience's mind as to how the story should be interpreted.
Many unreliable narrations are in stories told from the point of view of a child, because a young and inexperienced person will not necessarily understand what they are experiencing like an adult character. Huckleberry Finn is a good example.
Most of Harry Potter is told through 3rd person limited, and since he is a child, with less experience in many things, it makes sense that some of the narration from his point of view would be inaccurate.
Die, you said,” Okay...If Riddle told Harry that Ginny stole the diary back because she was afraid of the diary telling Harry her secrets, I believe that. Others do not. On the Ginny thread I was told Riddle had to be lying, and Ginny had to have stolen the diary back because she loved Harry and didn't want him to have something dangerous. I don't want to have to think about what it would be like if every bit of information I get could be a lie. That would make the whole series an exercise in frustration, not just the motives of certain characters, which are complicated enough.”
My personal rule of thumb is that I'd consider a piece of information to be correct if 1. it's really difficult to see JKR correcting this piece of info in Book 7, and 2. there's no particular reason to suspect the source of the info.
So as regards the diary (simply as an example) -- I don't think JKR will come back in book 7 and tell us some other "real" reason for Ginny's actions, although since Ginny still talks to Harry, that is remotely possible. But on the other hand, Riddle is not necessarily a reliable source, so that has to be considered.
JKR has told us that she sometimes uses Hermione and Dumbledore to give us true info -- reliable information is what I understand her to mean. She has not said this about other characters, however. Why would she make a point of telling us this about Hermione and DD, if we could trust any character's information?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Nov 30, 2006 10:25 pm (#977 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, thanks for posting that information about point of view and unreliable narration. It clarifies some important things for me.
Some good horror stories employ this narration, and you don't find out the narrator is a monster or a murderer until they do something horrible. Those can be quite fun!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 1, 2006 5:56 am (#978 of 1629)
I'm thoroughly on wynnleaf's side in this discussion.
Jo Rowling has no intention of ever giving the reader perfect information. The information is almost always colored by someone's point of view. The less we are told about something the less we can trust that information, it is only after seeing things occur numerous times or be thoroughly discussed that we can feel we have a good understanding of it.
The way that the Unbreakable Vow works is suspect knowledge because we have had only one explanation by an inexperienced wizard and have seen it cast once, but have never seen the results. We can make some pretty good guesses as to how it works, but we cannot be certain.
On the other hand we have very little doubt as to how a Summoning Charm works.
What this means is that we can make some pretty good guesses about the plot based on our limited knowledge of the Unbreakable Vow, but we can't expect to be exactly right. And what it means for this thread is that we have numerous plot lines running together and all of them have been subject to the fact our knowledge of them is not as good as we would like it to be. I've heard some good guesses about where the plot is going, but no one can convince me they have "The Answer." Our information just isn't good enough.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2006 7:30 am (#979 of 1629)
The way that the Unbreakable Vow works is suspect knowledge because we have had only one explanation by an inexperienced wizard and have seen it cast once, but have never seen the results. We can make some pretty good guesses as to how it works, but we cannot be certain.
I disagree. Adamantly. Rowling needs to convey information about how certain things work. Ron is a member of the Wizarding World with an intelligent father whom he pays attention to. If Ron says "it works like this", rather than "I bet it works like this", then we have a good idea that this information is accurate. Rowling is giving us information on how a spell works. Unless that information is a State Secret, the small amount of information she provides will be accurate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 8:04 am (#980 of 1629)
While there's a good discussion about the Vow on the Snape thread, I'd like to just point out that this is a good example of how an author can lead the reader into assumptions that aren't true (of course, I don't know that JKR has done this, but it would be easy).
Through Ron, JKR had the reader learn that an unbreakable vow is a vow that if you break it you die. We don't learn anything else from Ron. We're told he has this information due to an incident when he was 5. JKR has never said that she sometimes speaks through Ron, although we do sometimes learn tidbits about the WW through Ron's comments, so his information about the Vow could certainly be true, but we've never been specifically told that we can trust Ron's "facts."
But it's easy for an author to fool the reader this way. The reader starts to assume an awful lot from Ron's statement. When I read various fan sites, it seems to me that the prevailing notion is that breaking the Vow results in immediately dropping dead, and that the Vow simply "knows" all by itself -- with no decision by another party. But JKR didn't give us any of that information. It's just assumptions of the readers. But what JKR did do was have a trusted character give Harry some information which Ron says as though it's all the information you need to know. In other words, Ron doesn't add, "I don't really know how it works, or how you die, I just know you can die from it." So this odd assumption is unspoken, but still exists that somehow Ron's comment is enough for the reader to interpret exactly what will happen to Snape if he doesn't AK DD on the tower.
Yet no where did JKR ever tell us enough to make this a certainty. She leads us to assume it, through Ron's sketchy comments of a memory from his early childhood.
IF JKR has fooled us through the Vow, is it fair? Well, if it turns out that you don't die at all from it, then no it isn't "fair." But if it turns out that there are lots of extenuating circumstances that Ron didn't know about, such as a bonder having to decide when the Vow is completed, or that you can trick the Vow, or some other loophole, then yes, that would be fair. Because it would just be JKR having manipulated our assumptions, but not actually lied to us by having Ron be wrong in his comments.
Does that mean that JKR has lied to us every time a character is wrong in their "facts?" No. But in the case of Ron's comments on the Vow, so much of the plot and the reader's understanding of circumstances becomes invested in this "fact," that to have the fact be completely wrong would probably be an unfair deception of the author.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2006 8:23 am (#981 of 1629)
But what JKR did do was have a trusted character give Harry some information which Ron says as though it's all the information you need to know.
I suspect that is because that is all the information we need to know. If a good storyteller wishes to trick her readers, then the trick will lie in what they do know, not in what they don't. Willfully withholding vital information about how something works doesn't result in fooling your audience. There is no trick.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 8:50 am (#982 of 1629)
I suspect that is because that is all the information we need to know. If a good storyteller wishes to trick her readers, then the trick will lie in what they do know, not in what they don't. Willfully withholding vital information about how something works doesn't result in fooling your audience. (Mrs Brisbee)
Huh? Withholding vital information about how something works can't fool the audience? JKR has withheld loads of information from the readers in earlier books, and given explanations later that were sometimes big surprises and sometimes small surprises.
If most readers now come away thinking that Snape would have dropped down dead from not completing the Vow, and that no other person like the bonder was necessary to decide the Vow, and that you can't trick the Vow -- then if JKR turns up in book 7 and shows us that the bonder decides when the Vow is completed or some other such additional aspect to the Vow, then I'd have to say such a trick did work -- in spades.
The only added challenge would be for JKR to get the readers to appreciate that they'd been tricked, rather than feel cheated.
As regards this particular thread, if JKR has withheld all sorts of interesting information about DD having taking a Draught of Living Death, or carrying a horcrux that Snape destroyed with the AK, or that he was actually dying all through HBP or had his death "stoppered" (whatever that means), or Snape's AK wasn't a full-blown real AK, or any number of other pieces of information that could have been withheld from us -- then I suspect that most people will be quite surprised and JKR's tricks will have been most successful.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2006 9:00 am (#983 of 1629)
Harry asks Ron what happens when you break the Unbreakable Vow:
“You die,” said Ron simply. "Fred and George tried to get me to make one when I was about five. I nearly did too, I was holding hands with Fred and everything when Dad found us. He went mental," said Ron, with a reminiscent gleam in his eyes. "Only time I've seen Dad as angry as Mum. Fred reckons his left buttock has never been the same since."--(HBP, Ch 16, "A Very Frosty Christmas")
People believe what they do about the Unbreakable Vow because the information comes from a reliable source: Ron.
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that Ron is unreliable for information. Especially about how something works in the Wizarding World. Is there anything in the six books that demonstrates that he is an unreliable source for this sort of information? Especially when he is getting it from his father, whom Ron pays attention to?
Moreover, much has been made of Ron being only five, and therefore he must have a faulty memory. Not only does it sound like there are certain aspects of this memory that make it indelible (father going ballistic, danger of death), but the buttock comment shows that it hasn't been a taboo subject for all these years, either. It has been discussed since then. Ron isn't Harry-- he doesn't live under a "don't ask questions" stricture, so he is free to talk about this stuff with his family.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2006 9:17 am (#984 of 1629)
Huh? Withholding vital information about how something works can't fool the audience?—wynnleaf
No, it can't. Because then the audience isn't fooled, they are just uninformed.
JKR has withheld loads of information from the readers in earlier books, and given explanations later that were sometimes big surprises and sometimes small surprises.
I'm not sure we are talking about the same literary trick here. Can you give an example of what you mean?
If most readers now come away thinking that Snape would have dropped down dead from not completing the Vow, and that no other person like the bonder was necessary to decide the Vow, and that you can't trick the Vow -- then if JKR turns up in book 7 and shows us that the bonder decides when the Vow is completed or some other such additional aspect to the Vow, then I'd have to say such a trick did work -- in spades.
Only if the trick is based on information that we have. Ron says that if the person breaks the Vow, they die, not that the bonder decides if they die.
The only added challenge would be for JKR to get the readers to appreciate that they'd been tricked, rather than feel cheated.
Which in this case would be a real challenge.
As regards this particular thread, if JKR has withheld all sorts of interesting information about DD having taking a Draught of Living Death, or carrying a horcrux that Snape destroyed with the AK, or that he was actually dying all through HBP or had his death "stoppered" (whatever that means), or Snape's AK wasn't a full-blown real AK, or any number of other pieces of information that could have been withheld from us -- then I suspect that most people will be quite surprised and JKR's tricks will have been most successful.
Only if the trick makes sense. It has to tally with the information we have been given previously.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 1, 2006 9:57 am (#985 of 1629)
It's not about "tricking" the reader. It's about giving the reader enough information to grasp what is happening in the plot.
It is not Jo Rowling's practice to give the reader indisputable fact. She filters information through Harry's understanding, Harry's ability to ask the right questions when needed (and many times he doesn't), and through the understanding of the person giving the information to Harry.
Jo has told us that it is important to know why Dumbledore had James's Invisibility Cloak. Harry never thought to ask Dumbledore about this. Has Jo tricked us? Not really, it wasn't in the nature of the characters to seek out this information.
As regards the Unbreakable Vow, Harry believes he has all of the information that he needs and Ron believes that he has given him all of the information that he needs. We, the readers, should not assume that they are correct. It most likely is not correct because we lack two critical pieces of information, we do not know what "triggers" the death and we do not know how the "victim" dies. We can make some educated guesses, but they would only be guesses. Is it unfair to withhold this knowledge from the reader? No, I don't believe that it is, because it is critical that the reader understand Harry's view of Severus Snape and to have only the information that Harry has. Right now we actually have more information than Harry as we saw the Vow performed. It would, in my opinion, be unfair to the reader if we did know exactly how it worked, because then we would know whether or not Snape was good or evil, rather than merely have theories about it.
For any Mystery Plot to work it is vital that the reader be ignorant about some things. It is the author's responsibility to give us enough information to form good hypotheses, but not enough to know for certain until the protagonist has the same information.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Dec 1, 2006 9:57 am (#986 of 1629)
As regards this particular thread, if JKR has withheld all sorts of interesting information about DD having taking a Draught of Living Death,...then I suspect that most people will be quite surprised and JKR's tricks will have been most successful. (some text removed as this does not apply to all possible theories)
I do see one difference between the Vow and this scenario (Draught). We have heard about the Draught twice, and from Potions Masters and a potions book, and we know certain details:
1) It looks like water
2) It is a sleeping potion so powerful that it has the name Draught of Living Death.
In this scenario, the trick is that DD is not really dead because he drank something we have been told about twice. If it is true, we weren't really tricked, IMHO, we just didn't pay attention to the clues. (But I can see how you would call it tricked, but not unfair).
With the Vow, we have only one source of information, Ron, and we only know one possible fact, you die if you break it. We don't know anything else. So, if Snape were to break it and not drop dead, we would all want more info about the Vow. Was Ron wrong? Are there limits to what you can make a vower do? Are there ways to fool the vow? Does the bonder need to get involved? Does the vower need to know what he vowed to? In this case it is a lack of information that might 'fool' us into making assumptions, and then want more details if those assumptions are wrong. Unfair? Not really, IMO, if the explaination is believable.
On the other hand, if DD did take Draught of Living Death, no one could say that they were tricked by a lack of information. Even if we don't know how it works exactly, we know enough to accept this if Jo did it.
Hope that makes sense....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 11:33 am (#987 of 1629)
Good posts, Tom and T Vrana. I agree.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Dec 1, 2006 11:41 am (#988 of 1629)
TomProffitt says "For any Mystery Plot to work it is vital that the reader be ignorant about some things. It is the author's responsibility to give us enough information to form good hypotheses, but not enough to know for certain until the protagonist has the same information."
I'm not sure that I agree. Having read a fair amount of Agatha Christie, and other mysteries, I think that they only work if the author has given us all of the information that we need. The reader just has not had it presented in a way that makes it obvious.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 11:54 am (#989 of 1629)
Steve said:
Having read a fair amount of Agatha Christie, and other mysteries, I think that they only work if the author has given us all of the information that we need. The reader just has not had it presented in a way that makes it obvious.
Since we're dealing with a 7 book series here, I think it's a little different. There are some things that JKR always presents before she springs their surprise usage on us. So we are always shown the various potions, spells, magical devices, etc. that will come into play in the climactic scenes in any book. Further, we are always given hints and clues about what the outcomes will be -- who will be the traitor or other twists. But that does not mean that JKR gives us everything up front.
For instance, until book 6 we were never told anything about horcruxes. We had no idea why LV had not been completely destroyed when he tried to kill Harry.
There's a great deal that JKR has clearly been holding back about Snape. We suspect a lot of things, but it's almost all based on circumstantial evidence, or from what JKR hasn't shown us.
Readers guessed for some time how DD traveled back and forth to London, how adult wizards communicated, etc. We saw the carriages move without apparently anything pulling them for 4 books before we were finally told about thestrals.
And we have to remember, we haven't finished the series. JKR can continue to give clues throughout Book 7 until she reaches the final revelation phase. Just because we don't have all the information now doesn't mean that it won't come.
If you stopped an Agatha Christie book in the middle, and leapt to the final chapter, you would find that you'd missed a lot of important clues that the writer had intended you to pick up before the end. HBP is only half-way between the "full" book of 6/7, so I would not expect that we'd have been given all the clues needed in the first half of the book.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 1, 2006 12:03 pm (#990 of 1629)
Since we're dealing with a 7 book series here, I think it's a little different. --- wynnleaf
I concur. Rowling is essentially writing eight stories, not seven. The mysteries regarding Dumbledore's death & the Vow, while they have significant impact in HBP, are really about that eighth story, the one which covers all of the books not just the final one (or the 6th). I trust Rowling to fill in the missing spaces in our knowledge prior to the end of the series, but I also have no doubt that we do have blanks in our knowledge and that some of what we think we know may be incorrect.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Dec 1, 2006 5:47 pm (#991 of 1629)
I still have to believe Ron because to me, that is what he is there for...to be the person from a pureblood fmaily, who has grown up with magic all around him, with a father in the Minsitry, who can tell Harry what the wizarding world is like. So if Snape broke the vow by not killing Dumbledore when Draco could not, I think it's quite likely he would have died. Which is something Dumbledore would not have wanted.
Snape was literally in pain when Harry called him a coward. Harry himself compares him to yelping, howling Fang, trapped in Hagrid's burning hut. I think it's partly because he did what he had to do and killed Dumbledore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 1, 2006 9:29 pm (#992 of 1629)
Just to jump in, I have to go along with Die and Mrs. Brisbee here. Avada Kadavra works because the caster says the spell points the wand and bam, you're dead. What we didn't know about it is that the caster had to really mean it. I don't feel tricked about that. Ron basically quotes his dad about the Vow and is told if broken you die. Just exactally how or by who doesn't change the fact that you die. Now if we find out that the caster could change that, and the victim possibly could not die, that is tricking the reader. Snape's possible out on the tower with Dumbledore is if he didn't mean it then DD wouldn't have died. That isn't a trick, because we knew that information.
Let me also add that it is after midnight, and my thought cdould well not made much sense. For that I humbly apologize. If I was clear, then I will just say thanks.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Dec 2, 2006 2:10 am (#993 of 1629)
And, needless to say, from my recent posts on this and the Severus Snape thread (where I, too, said I have no reason not to believe Ron, etc.), I stand with Mrs. Brisbee, Die Zimtzicke and Thom Matheson.
I did not get a degree in English Literature or anything like some of you, but I have been a voracious reader all my life (I'm not quite as old as our dear Kip, but ...), which should count for a bit.
I know that some books have surprise endings and twists and such but, for the most part, in order for a book to have any credibility it seems to me the reader has got to believe what is written. Information can be passed on by the author in two ways: the narrative telling the reader what is happening by describing it, and the characters telling the reader what is happening through dialogue. This does not, of course, mean that every single character is telling the truth in every word he or she says. For that matter, an author can deliberately write in a character who is a consumate liar (eg - Lockhart).
But the reader has to believe that what the author tells her or him is happening is happening and that what the characters say is fact (within the limitations of human ... well, limitations: ignorance, prejudice, emotion, etc.). Otherwise, in my opinion, all credibility is lost. How can the reader suspend disbelief - vital in successful fiction - when he or she cannot believe anything he or she is being told in the book (i.e. - through it being described or a character saying it)?
And when two characters contradict each other, it is up to me to decide - looking at all factors - whose version I believe based on how I see that person. How that person has acted throughout the book, how reliable I feel they are, their ethics in terms of prior actions, thought and speech, etc.
I begin a piece of fiction on the assumption that what I am reading is true. (I do not, by the way, read fantasy or science fiction - by preference.) I *know* it's not true, as it is fiction, but it has to be written as if it is a true story with real people in it for me to care about the book. And how can I do that if I am suspicious of everything that is presented as fact and everything the author is telling me through her characters' voices? Or even a good chunk of the things?
It is true that I might find out later that a few of the things the writer has described turn out to be untrue when additional information is revealed. That's fine. Fun, even.
But if I had to read a novel always thinking, "This paragraph says David Copperfield went out and the sun was shining. Was it really shining or does he just imagine it is because he wants it to be?" - just to use a silly example -, then forget it! I have to believe that the author is saying the sun is shining because he or she is telling the readers that the sun is shining; that it's an absolute fact in the world of that novel!!
Again, this does not mean that there will not be twists in the plot (a good thing, if carefully and sparingly done - as Jo does brilliantly), and/or new surprising evidence introduced (again, a good device if carefully, sparingly and believeably done - as Jo does); but ... Holy Hippogriffs! If I could not believe that, to a large extent, Jo is telling us the truth through her narration of events as they have unfolded over the last 16 years and through the words of her characters, then these books are big cheats in my eyes. And I refuse to see them that way.
What we do not know which will come to light in Book Seven is great fun to speculate on. But that is different from saying we cannot believe a lot of what we have been told in the books, simply because we are following Harry around.
Anyway, sorry about the rant. Don't know if any of it made sense to anyone but me. Getting too emotional here. (breathe, Laura!) Maybe time for me to move over to a less intense thread for a couple of days.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 2, 2006 5:26 am (#994 of 1629)
How can the reader suspend disbelief - vital in successful fiction - when he or she cannot believe anything he or she is being told in the book .... --- Laura W
We (or at least I) are not proposing that everything is suspect. We are saying that everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Some information, obviously, is more reliable than others. To use your example, characters are unlikely to mistaken about the weather. Conversely whenever characters have to form judgments (whether we're talking about trust or beauty) we have to understand that we're receiving the characters opinion, for example Harry describes Pansy Parkinson as "pug faced" but we really don't know if this makes her unattractive or not, we only know how Harry feels.
When it comes to the Unbreakable Vow it is very hard for us to judge what is taking place in the story for two reasons. We don't know Draco's Task. We don't know precisely how the Vow works. Rowling has set us a mystery that we can expect to have explained over the course of Book 7. Based on the amount of information we have right now we can only guess at how it will unfold.
I think of the issue as explaining a complicated sports rule (like "icing" in Ice Hockey) we know the general information to be able to watch the game (you can't shoot the puck the full length of the ice) but we don't know the specifics (blue lines, end lines, touching up the puck, and where the face off goes). I don't know if any of the specifics of The Unbreakable Vow are important to the plot, but I'm pretty certain that it's too early to assume that they are irrelevant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 6:20 am (#995 of 1629)
Tom, in the case of the Vow, I agree with you about some lack of information regarding Snape’s Vow, but as I see it there are only a few things that will happen now regarding that particular bonding.
1) Snape will die. (he didn't live up to the promise, and as Arthur said, you die)
2) Snape lives. (because he did do what he promised to do, and Arthur is still correct).
3) Snape lives. (because the bonder chose to allow him to, and Arthur lied to Ron and eventually us).
I can't see any other choices here. Either 1 or 2 still validates Ron's explanation to us and we can take JKR for fact. If the outcome is 3, why would Rowling even bring it up? Why devote an entire chapter to the vow only to find out that death has a loophole in an Unbreakable Vow?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 2, 2006 7:19 am (#996 of 1629)
Thom,
Fourth option: The bonder doesn't decide if you die. The bonder is the one who acknowledges whether or not the Vow was completed. Arthur never told Ron exactly how the Vow worked, other than the basic "death if not fulfilled," so Arthur never lied at all (don't know where you got the notion that Ron's knowledge being incomplete means Arthur lied). Snape didn't fulfill the Vow, but doesn't die because the bonder (Bellatrix) dies without ever knowing that in fact Snape didn't fulfill the Vow.
Tom, excellent post and explanations.
Laura, I think the example of "Emma" -- the book JKR claimed as her own "standard" for surprise twists -- would be good. In "Emma" the protagonist believes she knows a great deal about the people around her. She's likeable, with good intentions, and quite intelligent. But she believes that she knows more about other people than she in fact does know. She's usually wrong, but in a few instances, the reader is meant to think she's quite right -- particularly in the case of her friend Frank Church, who is a sort of dandified gentleman. Frank joins her in making some snide remarks about a Jane Fairchild, a poor but honorable young woman who Emma is somewhat jealous of. Frank agrees with Emma's frequent comments about Jane and even joins Emma in making fun of Jane in her presence. The reader believes completely that Frank is quite sincere (that's not really the word I guess) in his criticisms and other remarks about Jane. Then at one point, Frank takes a trip to London in order to get his hair cut. This seems like a very in-character action for such a dandy, so the reader (and Emma) completely buy into it. But it's not true. In fact, Frank went to London to purchase a piano for poor Jane who is a talented musician, but can't afford her own instrument. What neither Emma nor the reader know is that, far from disliking Jane or seeing her as a figure of fun, Frank is in love with her and they are secretly engaged. This only comes out at the end and is generally quite surprising to the readers who were meant to completely accept that what they'd been told about Frank (through Emma's point of view) was true. Far from feeling cheated, this is a great twist that really works. And JKR seems to consider it a great piece of authorial deception.
I begin a piece of fiction on the assumption that what I am reading is true. (Laura W)
After the first couple of books, I begin each Harry Potter book knowing that JKR is going to be deceiving me somewhere. The only question is where.
What we do not know which will come to light in Book Seven is great fun to speculate on. But that is different from saying we cannot believe a lot of what we have been told in the books, simply because we are following Harry around. (Laura W)
But no one is saying that we can't believe most of what we've been told. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a lot of what we have been told." I certainly think that at least 90% of the information and descriptions in the books were accurate, maybe even more. They have to be, or the reader would question everything. The author needs the reader to trust that information and the descriptions, or the author will never be able to surprise the reader.
I realize you only used the weather example as a simple, trivial example. But the fact is, the Unbreakable Vow is not trivial at all. We have to expect that if JKR is going to misdirect the reader, it's not going to be over trivialities. Although there may by things that appear trivial (like Frank Church's trip to London for a haircut in Emma), which are not trivial at all and misdirection is taking place.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 9:20 am (#997 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- (smiling) What did you mean? I didn't get the Bella part. I have read your thought 3 times and I still don't get it. Please explain further. Sorry for my thick condition.
What I meant is that if the vow is not fulfilled a death takes place. That to me is what Ron was saying about Arthur's explanation. Whether or not the spell "knows that it has to be fulfilled" could explain how someone would die. But I take Ron's explanation at truth. If JKR recants herself later about "conditions" that must be met to include death, that would be the lie I was talking about. As I said we have an entire chapter setting the stage for this confrontation on the tower and the ONLY explanation of the severity of not fulfilling the vow is Arthur's through Ron.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 2, 2006 10:34 am (#998 of 1629)
Thom, you said earlier:
“As I see it there are only a few things that will happen now regarding that particular bonding.
1) Snape will die. (he didn't live up to the promise, and as Arthur said, you die)
2) Snape lives. (because he did do what he promised to do, and Arthur is still correct).
3) Snape lives. (because the bonder chose to allow him to, and Arthur lied to Ron and eventually us).
I thought your choice three assumed that the "bonder chooses to allow Snape to live -- as though there's an option for the bonder to choose that Snape live regardless of fulfilling the vow or not. I was theorizing another possibility where the bonder does not "decide" whether or not Snape lives or dies. The bonder is simply the holder of the promise, in the sense that when the bonder sees that the vow is fulfilled or broken, the vow is either ended, or the penalty takes effect. Otherwise, why have a bonder at all? Anyway, in that case, Snape could not fulfill the vow and as long as Bellatrix never knew that he'd avoided fulfilling it, the bonder couldn't see the Vow as broken, thereby involking the penalty. I'm not necessarily backing this theory, I'm must pointing out that there are alternatives that don't include Arthur lying about anything.
What I meant is that if the vow is not fulfilled a death takes place. That to me is what Ron was saying about Arthur's explanation.
But the huge assumption here is that just because Ron says a death takes place, that somehow the reader has been told how it comes about. Ron never says how or why the death takes place -- nothing about the person dropping dead as soon as the vow is broken, or what the bonder is for, not anything really. All those assumptions that the person making the Vow automatically drops dead are just that -- assumptions. Arthur (as far as we know) said nothing about that, nor did Ron. In fact, it's not even implied. But what is happening is that the reader is set up to assume that this is what happens. We assume it because we aren't given further information so we tend to settle for the simplest guess -- break vow, fall down dead. But no where did Ron, or Arthur say that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 12:52 pm (#999 of 1629)
Got it, thank you. So here we are back to square one. Oh cripes, welcome to the Lexicon. If JKR explains all of these things to us in the last book, we won't see it ‘til 2010, and it will be 3000 pages long.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 3, 2006 8:09 pm (#1000 of 1629)
All those assumptions that the person making the Vow automatically drops dead are just that -- assumptions. Arthur (as far as we know) said nothing about that, nor did Ron. In fact, it's not even implied. But what is happening is that the reader is set up to assume that this is what happens. We assume it because we aren't given further information so we tend to settle for the simplest guess -- break vow, fall down dead. But nowhere did Ron, or Arthur say that. – wynnleaf
I'd also like to turn that around: all that speculation that the Vow is a lot more complicated than Ron said it was is just that-- speculation. This is a problem I have with this, that we are entering into Pure Speculationville. There is nothing wrong with speculating, it can be fun, but let's call it what it is. I prefer to see some sort of hints or evidence that we should question something in the story before deciding it's an untrusty bit of information simply because it exists. So again:
... What happens if you break it, then?
“You die,” said Ron simply. -- (HBP, Ch 16, "A Very Frosty Christmas")
Can't get much more simple or straightforward then that. What triggers the Vow? When you break it. What will happen? You die. Maybe we're just so used to things in Rowling's universe being complicated that it's hard to accept something so straightforward, but there it is.
It actually doesn't even matter if you drop down dead immediately or if you contract an incurable disease and slowly waste away over the next twelve months (although I'm betting on the former). You're still going to die.
I can't even remember why we were speculating on this point. It seems to me that there are all sorts of weird things that need explanations, with definite incongruities that surround them, and we're off an a tangent suspecting straightforward information. Why is it so important that the Unbreakable Vow be way more complicated than it was presented? Is it so Snape has an out? If so, I feel we should be working the other way around, and building a theory to fit the clues, not clues to fit a theory.
If JKR explains all of these things to us in the last book. we won't see it ‘til 2010, and it will be 3000 pages long. --Thom Matheson
Lol, I would love a 3000 page book-- but not if it's 2000 pages of explanation about things that could have been explained clearly in previous books!
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1001 to 1025
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 6:54 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 4, 2006 4:20 am (#1001 of 1629)
If so, I feel we should be working the other way around, and building a theory to fit the clues, not clues to fit a theory. --- Mrs Brisbee
I agree. My position is that we don't have enough clues to form a viable theory. I had a dog in this "Unbreakable Vow Fight" because I felt that we knew too little about the Vow and the Task associated with it to form a solid theory about Snape's behavior.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that the Vow is as simple as suggested, the evidence is not there at this point to make that a certainty.
I will most likely be poking holes in just about any theory about what happened on that tower, because I don't think that there is enough evidence for anything.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Dec 4, 2006 6:13 am (#1002 of 1629)
“Very astute, Harry, but the mouth-organ was only ever a mouth-organ.” (DD in HBP, p.260, Raincoast ed.)
Sometimes a harmonica is just a harmonica.
LW
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 4, 2006 7:04 am (#1003 of 1629)
I certainly agree that there's not enough evidence to say that the Vow works one way or another. No one on the Forum, by the way has as far as I know questioned that the result of breaking the Vow is death. The question is how, when, and why that comes about. Ron doesn't say.
The problem sometimes comes up when a person is theorizing something like, for instance, Dumbledore faking his death, or Dumbledore dying of something else, or Snape's alternatives, and someone else jumps in and says, "that's impossible because Snape would have dropped dead on the tower if he hadn't killed DD right then." That's certainly a possible argument, but it's not definite that Snape would die immediately like that.
So that's one reason why the mechanics of the Vow get discussed.
The other thing is the whole practice of questioning "facts" that we're told by characters, which ones you can trust, etc. I believe that's how we got onto the Vow topic this time.
Personally, as far as "facts about magic," brought up by anyone other than teachers, I think that the only one to really trust is Hermione, and that's just because JKR has said that she speaks through Hermione sometimes when she wants to convey information to the readers. JKR never said that about Ron, regardless what guesses there are about Ron's input being there to give us an understanding of WW customs, etc. So I don't think Ron's "facts" have the same expectation of really being facts as Hermione's.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Dec 4, 2006 9:43 am (#1004 of 1629)
I agree, Wynnleaf.
While I think Ron is right, it is a general answer that provides no detail and leaves open many possibilities (intentionally). I personally doubt that the Vow was to kill DD for many reasons already discussed on Draco's Task and the Vow, not the least of which is Snape's apparent calm demeanor. With the exception of Sluggy's party at Christmas time, and the forest conversation (about the same time) Snape seems his normal, nasty, self, no concerns. If killing DD or Draco killing DD is impending, Snape's detentions with Harry, at the end of the year, are odd. Yes, Snape has to act the part, but tweaking Harry with threats of detentions the following year, knowing he or Draco will need to kill DD by year end just strikes me as strange. If DD's death is that close, why do we not get even a tiny hint from Snape, a bit of agitation, preoccupation or something.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Dec 4, 2006 9:49 am (#1005 of 1629)
Snape seems his normal pasty self, but Draco does not. He's ill, nervous, crying, pasty, gray faced and everything else. If he had confided in Snape, it would probably have ended quite differently. Draco, I think, is the linchpin on which everything turns. We need to find out the details of what Draco was doing, and then, I suspect, Snape's actions will make sense.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Dec 4, 2006 9:57 am (#1006 of 1629)
Draco clearly thought he was going to fail and die, along with his family, at LV's hands. The question for me is fail at what? If it was 'just' () killing DD I can't fathom why he spent all of his time post-Christmas working on the cabinet, and never tried once to harm DD. The year is nearly over and he's still trying to fix the cabinet, sobbing in the bathroom, and scared half to death. Snape, on the other hand, is totally fine. In fact, since Draco stopped trying to kill DD, he seems to have calmed down. With his nifty coin, Draco could have found out when DD was returning on any night and attempted to kill him.
Snape was really upset when Draco was actively (though not effectively) trying to kill DD.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 4, 2006 10:01 am (#1007 of 1629)
T, I agree with you as well, but I have a thought that just occurred to me. If Draco is carrying out Voldemort's plan rather than his own, he would be frustrated and scared
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Dec 4, 2006 10:10 am (#1008 of 1629)
Not sure I follow. LV's plan to...??
Need more detail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 4, 2006 10:58 am (#1009 of 1629)
T Vrana,
You made a good point. Once Draco quit trying to actively kill DD after Christmas, he seemed to put all of his focus on the cabinets. Yet from Snape's point of view, who (presumably) didn't know about the cabinets, Draco was not making any more active attempts on DD, and whatever his other "plans" might, they weren't working. So if Snape really thought Draco's task was to kill DD, one would expect Snape to be getting more and more nervous that the time was coming when Draco would clearly have failed to kill DD and Snape would have to step in and do it.
But we don't see any such agitation from Snape during the second half of the year. Indeed, his comments/actions regarding Harry's detention imply that he thinks he might be back the next year.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 4, 2006 12:58 pm (#1010 of 1629)
I have an hypothesis. Please, shoot it down, it's not well thought out, yet.
The previous posts about Snape & Dracos demeanor over the course of the school year got me to thinking:
1) Draco's task was to get Death Eaters into the school.
2) Severus intended to delay Draco until he could get Death Eaters into the school when the students were not present. That is complete the Vow during the summer holidays.
While this idea would account for behavior prior to the battle on the tower, I'm not sure how well it fits into the rest of the book.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Dec 5, 2006 4:42 pm (#1011 of 1629)
No one on the Forum, by the way, has, as far as I know, questioned that the result of breaking the Vow is death. (wynnleaf)
I would say your post #980 comes very close to doing just that - because we cannot take Ron at his word on the consequences of breaking the Vow.
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, completely forgetting about the incident that occurred when he was five, 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 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 16 when he and Harry have this short conversation.
Of course Jo isn't going to give us any more solid information than the tantalizing tidbit she leaked through the reliable 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. But that, I would venture to say, is irrefutable. And Jo used Ron to tell us and Harry just that little bit. Not because Ron did not know more details but because Jo did not want Ron to tell us any more.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Dec 5, 2006 5:21 pm (#1012 of 1629)
PART 2 --
Heck, if we knew exactly what Draco's task was, and exactly what Severus was agreeing to when he took the Vow, and exactly what agreement Dumbledore and Snape had and how - if at all - Snape taking the Vow influenced that agreement between him and DD, and how - if at all - that influenced the interaction between DD and Snape on the Tower, we wouldn't need this thread at all, would we? (grin)
You know, guys, the first time I read HBP, I thought that when Dumbledore said, "Severus, please ...", he was begging Snape not to kill him. Then Snape AK'd him and I thought he was doing this either because a) he was not loyal to Dumbledore after all and wanted to ingratiate himself with LV, or b) he was carrying out the task Draco was given because he had promised Narcissa he would (and, incidently, because he would die if he didn't; but I think honouring his solemn word to Narcissa would be just as important to Severus).
As time went on, I changed my mind to see that "Severus, please ..." as "Severus, please kill me because I am in agony and too much time has passed. It is too late for even you to heal the illness or injury caused by curse potion I drank at this point and, if you are truly loyal to me, you will do my bidding and allow me to go on to my next adventure without having to endure anymore unnecessary suffering."
Now, I see the discussion on this thread is travelling along the lines of whether DD had Snape do what he did on the Astronomy Tower because it would be Snape fulfilling the Vow and therefore, not needing to suffer the consequences of not doing so. In other words, knowing about the Vow and its consequences, Dumbledore was sacrificing himself to save Snape's life (something I could see him doing for anybody). On the other hand, by requesting this of Snape, he would be condemning him to a life sentence in Azkaban - for doing an Unforgivable - if caught by the Aurors (as happened to Sirius, when it was thought he was a murderer). So, how kind is DD being to the Potions Master in that case? (a rhetorical question)
An aside -- You do know, people, there are millions and millions of devoted fans all around the world who have read HBP and just say, "I can't wait to read Book Seven so I can find out how this saga ends." and they leave it at that. (ok, forget I said that)
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 5, 2006 6:11 pm (#1013 of 1629)
Laura, none of those millions are on this forum. Oh surprise, I had the same thoughts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 6, 2006 5:14 am (#1014 of 1629)
Laura, none of those millions are on this forum. --- Thom Matheson
Yes, they are. I'm one of them. This series was designed with an end in mind, not like some TV series that's run two seasons too long and can't afford it's acting talent anymore. The end will be satisfying and in some ways comforting, it will not be a
letdown with too many loose ends unresolved.
I find this thread interesting, because I'm hoping someone will be able to convince me of which way it is going to go. No one has thus far. I've seen a lot of ideas I like, and a lot of ideas I think are absurd. I'll keep reading and post the occasional thought I have to see what others have to say about it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Dec 6, 2006 5:47 am (#1015 of 1629)
TomProffitt, what I meant - and Thom Matheson got it - was not that *we* are not looking forward to finding out what happens, but that *we* obviously cannot let the first six books be (i.e. - rest in peace?) until that time.
A lot of people have no trouble doing that and would not even think to do what we are doing. As in them saying, "All I know is what I have been told so far and I have no need to analyze any of it or to do any speculation on it. Dumbledore's death? What are you guys going on and on about?? Dumbledore and Harry were on the Astronomy Tower, Draco confronted DD but couldn't kill him, then Snape came up and AK'd him. That's the end of it. Why need to look into it any further? Whatever we learn in Book Seven, we will learn in Book Seven. Why speculate or even care until then?" Millions of people who are *huge* HP fans think in the way I just put in quotes above.
I guess one either understands the point I was making, Tom, or one doesn't. It's almost like an in-joke that some will get and some won't. For anyone who didn't, please just ignore that part (ie - the last paragraph) of my message #1012 and only read my last two posts #1011 and #1012 up to that point.
(I'm sure in the two posts, even without that paragraph, I said plenty of contentious things for people reading this thread to take me to task on and for us all to debate - mischievous grin.)
laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 6, 2006 6:41 am (#1016 of 1629)
Laura, not a big deal. I read it as more of a "we don't want it to end at all" kind of statement, rather what you have indicated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 6, 2006 8:39 am (#1017 of 1629)
That's it exactly. How many are on this forum? Couple hundred? And of that, do we not see the same posters over and over. This is not unusual in anything. The 10% rules do apply in all things. That is, 10% handle 90% of the load. So with millions of Book and Film fans around how many explore and dissect as we do. That is all I meant. Sorry to imply anything else.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Dec 6, 2006 8:54 am (#1018 of 1629)
And the people who don't even read the books, but just watch the films would probably think we were all slightly insane, wouldn't they? LOL!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 6, 2006 9:04 am (#1019 of 1629)
Not me, Not me, Not me, Not me, or me
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 6, 2006 9:33 am (#1020 of 1629)
Laura, I agree that most readers seem to be able to read the books, put them aside, and just wait for the next. Maybe they wonder occasionally what's going to happen next, or re-read the books a second time or even a third and wonder exactly what was going on, but they aren't picking everything apart and theorizing constantly like we are.
I also think there are different directions that those of us on the forum take. For instance, a lot of people on the Forum are really interested in speculating about what will happen in Book 7. What are the possible horcruxes, who will die, how will LV be destroyed. Mostly, those things don't concern me, because I tend to think that it's impossible to really know what JKR will do in the next book and there's not a lot of interest (for me) in guessing.
Personally, I like to focus on what's already occurred, what was "really" happening, etc. Some of that touches on what will happen in the next book, but I don't really go there too much. For instance, I like to speculate about what really happened the night DD was AK'd, but I don't like to speculate much about how, when, or why we might hear from DD in Book 7. I like to look at all the evidence about Snape's loyalties, but don't care to do much speculating on what he'll do in Book 7. I am very interested in how POA and the following books perfectly positioned Lupin's character to be revealed as a traitor (sorry, I like him, but he's extremely well positioned for that), but I don't ever speculate on what will happen to Lupin in Book 7.
Yet there are plenty of readers here on the Forum who take a major interest in trying to figure out what will happen next.
Then there's the symbology. people. They're heavily "into" the alchemy, literary symbols, chess symbols, etc., and trying to work out how those symbols can fit. I find that all very interesting and sometimes enlightening, but it's not really my thing.
And the ships, which just bore me.
Anyway, my point is simply that there are those who are equally as obsessed with HP, but are focused on different aspects and are motivated by different interests, not all of which have to do with what will occur next in last book.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 6, 2006 12:20 pm (#1021 of 1629)
Well said Wynnleaf. Just another eclectic group. Ever wonder how book clubs got along without the internet?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Dec 7, 2006 2:59 am (#1022 of 1629)
Sheesh, Thom, stop apologizing (your post 1017) every time you agree with me! How do you think that makes me look when those in my camp on any HP issue end up apologizing for it?!! (BROAD GRIN, but I mean it! - winking)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wynnleaf, I do not think we disagree - this time
- at all. Note that I wasn't talking only about speculation, but also about in-depth analysis of the already-published novels when I wrote, "*we* obviously cannot let the first six books be (i.e. - rest in peace?)," as opposed to the millions who can and do. Not allowing the books "to be" takes, as you say and as did I, more than one form on this Forum: speculation about what has happened, speculation about what will happen, analysis of what we have read (and if we can believe it - sigh -, or is Jo deliberately deceiving us ), what is the significance of what Jo has failed to tell us to date which some of us have decided is important - although *she* may not! - ( e.g. - many more details about the character Lupin or any other character for that matter), etc.However you slice it, the fact is that millions of people are quite content to see Dumbledore's death as I described it in italics in my last post to TomProffitt ; without having to or wanting to dissect Snape's motive, if Snape really stunned Flitwick, DD's possible agreement with Snape, the possible relationship between what happened on the Tower and the Unbreakable Vow, what Draco's real task was (the obvious ones being to let the DEs into the school - which he did - and to kill Dumbledore - which he failed at, as Narcissa said he would in Spinners' End), and every other possibility. They are willing to just sit tight until Book Seven tells them what Book Seven thinks they should know about that night. Many of us here are not content to do so.
PS - When Lupin ends up doing something terribly heroic and self-sacrificing in Book Seven, you'll be sorry! (grinning with twinkle in my eye)
Now, on with the discussion ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Dec 7, 2006 7:52 pm (#1023 of 1629)
In re-reading HBP, a thought that occurred before, but occurs again now. For those who accept DD's 'properly dead' at the end of HBP, the Fawkes Lament is one sign. Yet, Fawkes seems to verbalize DD's emotion throughout HBP. Whenever DD is feeling emotional toward Harry, Fawkes lets out a low cry. So, in the 'DD wasn't properly dead' camp, Fawkes lament was a reflection of DD's sorrow at needing to leave Harry to go on alone.
Just a thought...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TwinklingBlueEyes - Dec 7, 2006 11:40 pm (#1024 of 1629)
Vulture, for what my opinion is worth, I like your theory. And like others, I can find holes in it. But why? JKR is gonna write it no matter what we feel is the right literary direction, what is morally right, whatever we decide and our justification of how it was, how it is, and how it might be...
Well, maybe yes, I may have been wrong, as I look upon Hogwarts grounds one last time. Even if I was wrong, I have faith that all will turn out alright. How we get there is up to JKR.
‘tis her world and her story. Who are we to say what she has to do, in either a moral or a logical, or a literary sense. We already know she stays within, and yet flaunts the, shall I say, the traditional mores. Mayhap it is why she has such a following? When she defies the progression of the storyline, like she has for six books now, how can we say what she will come up with?
Whenever DD is feeling emotional toward Harry, Fawkes lets out a low cry. So, in the 'DD wasn't properly dead' camp, Fawkes lament was a reflection of DD's sorrow at needing to leave Harry to go on alone."
My feelings exactly, see above. You can't develop a feel, and invest in a story, unless you can identify with all the innuendos, sub-plots, feel feelings and thoughts and emotions of the roles of the characters involved.
At the same time we cannot defy all logic and predict JKR.
Edited for my clarity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
rambkowalczyk - Dec 9, 2006 12:08 pm (#1025 of 1629)
Way back when there was a discussion along the lines that Snape was AKing the locket to destroy the horcrux. and that what Snape destroyed was the horcrux not Dumbledore.
Suppose this was the plan. That Dumbledore was to get the horcrux from the cave. He was to wear it in a specific pocket. Snape was to aim the AK curse to that pocket and destroy the horcrux. Dumbledore would fake his death making it look like Snape killed him. Dumbledore goes into permanent hiding.
If Draco is nowhere in the vicinity, then Draco would think Dumbledore is dead, therefore he would have no need to kill him. Therefore the third part of the vow would "never become necessary" as long as Draco thinks Dumbledore is dead.
A number of things went wrong but the most important is that the locket wasn't a horcrux, so when Snape AKed Dumbledore he actually killed him because there wasn't a soul in the locket.
Unfortunately the problem with this theory is that the locket was nowhere near his chest, was it?
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1026 to 1050
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 10:16 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 9, 2006 12:18 pm (#1026 of 1629)
And, also Harry, as a witness.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Dec 9, 2006 5:29 pm (#1027 of 1629)
I think there is a possibility the real Horcrux locket was around Dumbledore’s neck. There is a reference to Dumbledore clutching his chest - was he feeling for the locket to make sure it was in place? Of course, he had the fake locket in his pocket. Did Hagrid in preparing the body find the real Horcrux around Dumbledore's neck? We know in POA Hagrid found Scabbers and hung on to him until he could give him back to Ron - did he stow the locket away and will he later mention it to Harry? There are many possibilities and I think this idea is as good as any.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 9, 2006 8:04 pm (#1028 of 1629)
I thought that he clutched his chest because that is where Severus murdered him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 9, 2006 8:47 pm (#1029 of 1629)
I thought that he clutched his chest because that is where Severus murdered him.
Read it again.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 9, 2006 9:16 pm (#1030 of 1629)
Big grin, Wynnleaf. I know, but it was the first thing that entered my head. Couldn't help myself. I just had this “OK corral” vision. Sorry all
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 9, 2006 9:27 pm (#1031 of 1629)
LOL, Thom, something like an old western, with Dumbledore clutching his chest as he falls over the railing in the saloon, and then crashes through a rickety wooden table? Dang I tall, now that Thom's said it, I can see it all so clearly: wizard robes and cowboy hats, and wands ablazing!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 10, 2006 4:54 am (#1032 of 1629)
Big grin Wynnleaf. I know, but it was the first thing that entered my head. Couldn't help myself. I just had this “OK corral” vision. Sorry all
Thom, I'm so glad you didn't take offense to my response! I'd had a very frustrating day in Real Life yesterday. If you'd been a newbie I'd have answered you, instead of just the "find out yourself" response.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 10, 2006 7:43 am (#1033 of 1629)
Oh, I see how you are now, I'm old hat.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 10, 2006 2:02 pm (#1034 of 1629)
Yeah, the comfortable kind!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 10, 2006 3:11 pm (#1035 of 1629)
Thanks for that. My German Shorthair is names Shoe for that reason.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 12, 2006 10:28 am (#1036 of 1629)
As many of you know, I've been theorizing for some time that DD knew in advance that the attack would either take place that night, or sometime close, and that he left through Hogsmeade in a manner that intentionally revealed his leaving the castle. Further, that he had brought the larger number of Order members to patrol the castle because he expected the attack. And I've been speculating that DD knew because Snape told him, having found out from other DE's, who did not seem particularly surprised to see Snape on the tower. I have speculated that whoever told Snape about the attack also revealed the plan to lure DD to the astronomy tower upon his return to Hogwarts. I have commented that Snape seemed to know to go directly to the tower, without anyone being able to tell him that Draco and particularly Dumbledore were up there.
This is in no way conclusive, but I was interested to note Snape's comments about taking or harming Harry that night.
In “Flight of the Prince,” someone Crucios Harry and Snape stops them.
‘No!’ roared Snape’s voice and the pain stopped as suddenly it had started; Harry lay curled on the dark grass, clutching his wand and panting; somewhere above him Snape was shouting, ‘Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord – we are to leave him! Go! Go!’
These may just be generic orders, to never hurt Harry. But the way Snape words it, especially the "we are to leave him," part sounds like Snape was aware of a plan for that night.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vulture - Dec 12, 2006 11:23 am (#1037 of 1629)
Besides, why would Snape stun Flitwick? He was about to do (in Flitwick's eyes) exactly what Flitwick wanted and expected -- he was going to go directly to where the fighting was and then try to go up the tower. So it's not like Snape was about to do something that Flitwick shouldn't see. And moments later, Snape saw no need to stun anyone else, did he? No attempts on any other staff, Order members, or students. As for the one person that even a loyal Snape might have had a reason to stun -- to stun Harry so he'd stop pursuing him -- he doesn't even attempt to stun Harry. (wynnleaf - Nov 24, 2006 6:24 am (#834)
]I absolutely agree _ yet I still think Snape stunned Flitwick. So why do I think he stunned him when he had no reason to ? _ I think so because I think he reacted with fury and frustration because Flitwick had (unwittingly) triggered the Vow and now Snape was caught by it. Actually, seen in this light, Snape's stunning of Flitwick and then not hurting anyone else, except Dumbledore, is good evidence for his defence. My feeling is that he didn't want to fulfil the Vow, but did not feel able to break it when it came to the moment. (That would be a pretty good reason for Dumbledore's last words, by the way.) (Vulture - Nov 27, 2006 10:44 am (#869)
The third part of the Vow says if it becomes necessary... Suppose Snape told Dumbledore the whole Vow and Dumbledore concluded that it was possible that "it would never be necessary". If Draco could conclude that he was not a killer, and that he would be willing to go into hiding and stay in hiding until Voldemort was defeated, then maybe Draco could decide he was not going to try anymore to kill Dumbledore. No lives would be in danger, therefore it would not be necessary. Maybe this is what Snape thought that Dumbledore took too much for granted. (rambkowalczyk - Nov 30, 2006 4:07 am (#901)
If I may, I'd like to focus attention on the above quotations to discuss my hunch that Snape didn't want to carry out the murder of Dumbledore (let's assume that this was the Vow's task), but in the end, failed to choose what was right (admittedly, a terrible choice) over what was easier. (I tend to assume that he's not on Voldemort's side, but I should stress that my hunch could still apply if he was.) I say "easier" rather than "easy" because my guess is that Snape will turn out to have been on the good side until the Tower, and that killing Dumbledore was painful for him. What I'd like to stress is how common-sense this hunch makes many of the events which otherwise demand hard theorizing. Vulture, "5th Severus Snape thread" #912, 2 Dec 2006 6:56 am
Hi, Folks: Hope I'm not interrupting. The above is mainly a repeat of a theory I've been discussing on the Snape thread _ I'd like to see how it goes down here. What started me on it original,y was doing some intense nit-picking about Snape stunning Flitwick (mind you, some people don't even agree that Snape did stun him _ they say that that was just Hermione's assumption).
Anyway, what intrigued me was that (a) Snape stunning Flitwick and not killing him, and (b) far from harming Hermione and Luna, giving them careful instructions to look after Flitwick before charging off like the proverbial bat out of hell, doesn't add up, whichever side Snape is on.
If he's on the good side, what's the point of stunning Flitwick ? If it's part of a cunning pro-Dumbledore plan, why stun only Flitwick ? If he's evil, why didn't he kill anyone ?
Well, the only explanation that convinced me (but no-one else, apparently) was that Snape never meant, or planned, to stun Flitwick. He did so on the spur of the moment. What would make him do so ? _ I concluded that Flitwick's arrival had triggered the countdown to the Vow, and Snape, who wanted to avoid it, had reacted in momentary fury.
So anyway, that all got me thinking along the lines of my theory, as above in #912 of the (5th) Snape thread.
The main thing I want to get across about my theory is that, as far as possible, it relies simply on what we see in Book 6, with no other additional theories (apart from references to Books 1 to 5).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 12, 2006 12:31 pm (#1038 of 1629)
Vulture,
I have, for the first time, read the UK version of the last chapters of HBP. One thing that struck me is that in the UK version, we are specifically told that Flitwick, after waking up and being okay, went off to check on his Ravenclaws, which is why he's not in the hospital wing for the re-hashing of events with everyone else.
That means that JKR consciously gave Flitwick's character an excuse to be absent when Hermione tells her story. This is important. Why did JKR want Flitwick out of the scene? Because, in my opinion, she didn't want the reader to hear Flitwick's story.
That continues to make me believe that Flitwick was not really stunned. That, and the fact that later narration says that Flitwick collapsed. Why would JKR have the narration say that, if he'd really been stunned?
Oh, and one thing more. I think his bump on his head was in front, which suggests falling forward. If Snape stunned him facing onward, wouldn't Flitwick fall backwards? That's minor, but still, it fits with Flitwick not being stunned.
Back to Snape's reminder to the other DE's that "we are to leave him!" How does Snape know that LV wanted Harry left behind? It really sounds like the kind of thing he'd say if he had known at least part of the plan of attack. And if Snape knew -- then only a loyal-to-LV-Snape would not tell DD. Besides, there's too much evidence that DD knew the attack was coming. This is just a little evidence that he could have gotten his info from Snape.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Dec 12, 2006 12:49 pm (#1039 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, that bump on the front thing is awesome. Never caught that before. Great work.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Dec 12, 2006 12:57 pm (#1040 of 1629)
Wynnleaf - "Back to Snape's reminder to the other DE's that "we are to leave him!" How does Snape know that LV wanted Harry left behind? It really sounds like the kind of thing he'd say if he had known at least part of the plan of attack."
Or maybe Snape was just lying and the DE's didn't know the difference. They think Snape is in the inner circle and knows more of Voldemort's plans than they do. Snape just lied and said that to protect Harry from being harmed. That's how I saw it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Dec 12, 2006 1:00 pm (#1041 of 1629)
But what happens when LV finds out Snape lied? This only works if Snape is going into hiding.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 12, 2006 1:08 pm (#1042 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, that bump on the front thing is awesome. Never caught that before. Great work.
I didn't notice it. Whitehound (who has occasionally posted here) noticed it first.
”We are to leave him!” Snape's reminder to the DE's to leave Harry behind.
Or maybe Snape was just lying and the DE's didn't know the difference. They think Snape is in the inner circle and knows more of Voldemort's plans than they do. Snape just lied and said that to protect Harry from being harmed. (Choices)
Yes, that's what I've assumed, too. I just started to think that the first part sounds more likely if it was a lie -- "Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord " but the last part "we are to leave him!" sounds like Snape actually knew those to be orders of LV and knew the DE's would remember these to have been orders. After all, isn't he taking a huge risk if LV had actually given completely different orders?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 12, 2006 4:27 pm (#1043 of 1629)
I'm a bit lost. Why is the bump being on Flitwick's forehead evidence he wasn't Stunned?
A) Snape Stuns Flitwick while facing him and he falls forward. Bump on forehead.
B) Snape Stuns him while his back is turned and Flitwick falls forward. Bump on forehead.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 12, 2006 4:50 pm (#1044 of 1629)
I'm a bit lost. Why is the bump being on Flitwick's forehead evidence he wasn't Stunned? (Mrs Brisbee)
You're quite correct in that it's not conclusive. However, we know that Flitwick "collapsed" just after running in. It would seem more likely that he'd be facing Snape, so if Snape stunned him he'd fall backward. Otherwise, if Snape stunned him, he hit him in the back. Hmm... I don't think that's what happened unless Snape really was evil.
Anyway, as I said, it's only a piece of evidence. But when you take 1. JKR consciously giving Flitwick a reason to be gone while the events are re-hashed and Hermione gives her "take" on what happened to Flitwick, plus 2. the fact that later narration continues to speak of Flitwick's "collapse," rather than his being "stunned," and 3. the fact that Flitwick's bump is on his forehead meaning he fell forward, and 4. the only reason Hermione assumed Snape stunned him in the first place is because she assumed Snape was evil -- well, with all of that I think the weight of the evidence leans toward the greater likelihood that Snape did not stun Flitwick.
Evidence that he did stun Flitwick? Uh, hm. All the people that think Snape is evil assume he stunned Flitwick. Flitwick is not seen offering up another story of the event (of course, we don't know if Flitwick realizes people think Snape stunned him). And the only other thing is that many readers can't see why JKR would make us think Snape stunned him if he really didn't, or can't envision how we'd ever find out that Snape didn't stun him. I can't think of anything else.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 12, 2006 4:54 pm (#1045 of 1629)
Now that you mention it, Flitwick having a bump on his forehead does sound like Snape Stunned him while his back is turned
If I were attacking a dueling champ, that's what I'd do too.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 12, 2006 8:02 pm (#1046 of 1629)
If he's on the good side, what's the point of stunning Flitwick ? If it's part of a cunning pro-Dumbledore plan, why stun only Flitwick ? If he's evil, why didn't he kill anyone ? – Vulture
I think the reason Snape didn't kill anyone (other than Dumbledore, that is) is because that wasn't his mission. Flitwick isn't part of the Order (as far as we know, anyway), and it's pointless to leave an unnecessary trail of dead bodies in your wake before you even know if you can fulfill your main objective. So, to be on the safe side, you don't start killing people if you don't have to-- so Flitwick, Luna, and Hermione are left otherwise occupied, but not dead, so just in case things don't actually come to a head you still have a chance of explaining away your actions. There was no point in killing any of those three, even by Diabolically Evil Snape.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Wandless Wizard - Dec 25, 2006 3:53 pm (#1047 of 1629)
Why did Flitwick collapse if he was not stunned or stupified? He came sprinting down the stairs, threw open a door, yelled at Snape and then just collapes and takes a nap? Even if he was injured or cursed and that caused him to collapse, the timing would be way too convenient for him to collapse right at that moment after being able to sprint. When Hermione and Luna went into the room Flitwick was unconscious. Flitwick went from sprinting to asleep in a few moments. How did that happen without outside help?
I am fairly certain Snape stunned him. It would not be beyond Snape to stun him when his back is turned, even a good Snape. Remember, the good Snape is still cruel and still a Slytherin. Slytherins take whatever advantage they can get. So when Flitwick turned to run back into the fray after telling Snape what happened, Snape stunned him. Then leaving the room, he was surprised to find Hermione and Luna, made up the stupid "He collapsed" story and they bought it.
This doesn't point to Snape being good or bad, he either wanted Flitwick out of the way so he didn't oppose the Death Eaters or wanted him out of the way so he could fulfill his part of what Dumbledore asked him to do without interference. Was Snape protecting Flitwick or removing a potential threat? Either way, it was most likely Snape and not a random collapse that gave Flitwick his bump.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Steve Newton - Dec 25, 2006 4:39 pm (#1048 of 1629)
Flitwick does seem to be above the fray. He is neither a DE nor in the OOTP yet seems to be respected. I have sometimes wondered whether or not he is more important than he appears but have not come up with any evidence that he is. In any case neither side seems to be interested in harming or recruiting him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 25, 2006 5:55 pm (#1049 of 1629)
Wandless Wizard said:
Why did Flitwick collapse if he was not stunned or stupified? He came sprinting down the stairs, threw open a door, yelled at Snape and then just collapse and takes a nap?
JKR did not tell us for sure what happened to Flitwick. One could just as easily ask, "if Snape is loyal, why stun Flitwick at all?"
But that's not the real question, in my opinion. The question is, why have Flitwick collapse at all? Why did JKR write this part in? Why did she consciously have Flitwick given a specific reason to be gone from the Hospital Wing (the UK version says he went to go check on the Ravenclaws), before Hermione gets a chance to tell her story?
JKR made this big point of Flitwick's collapse -- which she has no use for if it's just to convince anyone of Snape's treachery. I mean, if AKing Dumbledore doesn't convince people, Flitwick's collapse will mean nothing. So what is the literary purpose of this? No way is this "random," especially from the point of view of the writer. So why did she do write it? And why make sure Flitwick never got to collaborate the assumption that Snape stunned him?
If Flitwick was really stunned, the entire thing is practically pointless. Keeping Hermione and Luna out of the fighting could easily have been accomplished by Snape ordering the girls to some other location. No characters need extra "evidence" to convince them Snape is a traitor. What does it achieve that isn't already being achieved elsewhere? Not much.
BUT if Flitwick wasn't really stunned, then the whole scene makes perfect literary sense (that is, if Snape is really loyal). Then the scene offers a perfect small event to have Harry discover -- perhaps just after the funeral -- that Flitwick wasn't really stunned at all. He could hear this from Flitwick or another staff person, or a student who overheard about Flitwick's collapse. That could easily be a point in the next book where we early on start to realize that Harry's assumptions about that evening might not all be correct. The first chink or crack in the wall.
Is it pure "coincidence" that JKR devised an excuse for Flitwick to be gone from the hospital wing when Hermione told her story? Was it simply coincidence that her narration continued to speak of Flitwick's "collapse," even after Hermione, Harry and the others assume Snape stunned him? Are these just chance words JKR happened to toss in? Or were there reasons?
Little is accomplished in the plot (whether Snape is good or evil, loyal or disloyal), by Flitwick being stunned. But if Flitwick really did collapse, and yet everyone assumed Snape guilty without having any evidence, then that could affect the plot.
I realize some people say that JKR couldn't be planning for this event (or non-event) to be that Flitwick collapsed, because they don't think JKR would revisit this in DH. But if JKR intended this to be something where everyone assumes Snape's guilt incorrectly, then she planted this with the specific intention of revisiting it in the next book.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Dec 25, 2006 7:54 pm (#1050 of 1629)
Perhaps the stunning/collapse of Flitwick is just another little device JKR threw in to further confuse us as to Snape's loyalties. She is so very good at doing that.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1051 to 1075
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 10:29 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
The Wandless Wizard - Dec 26, 2006 7:11 am (#1051 of 1629)
wynnleaf wrote: "if Snape is loyal, why stun Flitwick at all?"
As has been said about Umbridge, the world is not divided just into good people and Death Eaters. Even if Snape is good and loyal, he is still a slimy Git. DD knew exactly what Malfoy was up to. DD and Snape had talked about it as Snape was sent to watch Malfoy. So at this point, Snape knew what Malfoy was trying to do and what DD wanted Snape to do.
If Snape is loyal to Voldemort, he wants Flitwick out of the way to make it easier for the Death Eaters to accomplish their goal. If he is loyal to Dumbledore, he wants Flitwick out of he way so he does not get stunned by a Ex-Dueling champ when he pretends to go over to the wrong side. Snape could not complete his plan if Flitwick was with him going to the top of the tower, regardless of where his true loyalties lie. Rather than try to ditch Flitwick on the way to the tower, the Slytherin in him took the opportunity when his back was turned to stun him.
JKR made this big point of Flitwick's collapse –
Not really. There was the one mention of it when Hermione was telling her story. There was another mention in the British version that he went to check on the students which really didn't have to do much with his collapse. I do not recall it mentioned much outside of this. Arnold the Pygmy puff was mentioned more often and he is just a colorful addition to the plot (as far as we know). The entire book cannot be clues. There have to be things in the story that are just there for narrative. This is one of those. Otherwise it is way too convenient to have a running, shouting Flitwick collapse the moment he tells Snape and be unconscious long enough to miss the whole fight.
So why have Flitwick stunned from a narrative aspect? First and foremost it was just the flow of the story. The story was being told from where the Order was fighting and then shifted to where Hermione was. Someone had to tell Hermione what was going on. So they had a rather minor character tell Snape, which Hermione overheard. Then they needed that character out of the way to tighten the narrative flow. We were following Snape at this point in the telling. If Flitwick had remained with Snape, he would have told his side of the story. That would have been useless narrative. So JKR knocked him out and had him absent from the scene of the re-telling. It need not be more than that.
Another narrative reason for removing Flitwick is numbers. The Order was supposed to be losing the battle. With the few Death Eaters mentioned versus all the teachers and Order members and DA students on Felix, I'd find that hard to believe they were losing. Take an ex-dueling champ out of the mix, and you can even the numbers a little bit more.
Finally, it is one more crime to throw at Snape's feet. You say killing Dumbledore should be enough, but we are still arguing about it aren't we? People have said on this board, Snape'd have to be evil to stun Flitwick from behind. Yet, he does not have to be evil to kill Dumbledore. So what's the harm of giving Snape one more crime.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 26, 2006 8:35 am (#1052 of 1629)
There was the one mention of it when Hermione was telling her story. There was another mention in the British version that he went to check on the students which really didn't have to do much with his collapse. I do not recall it mentioned much outside of this.
No, there's also the point later when Harry sees Flitwick again and notices the bump on his forehead and the narration tells us that Flitwick "had a large bruise on his forehead but seemed otherwise unscathed by his collapse in Snape's office."
So we have Hermione telling about Flitwick being gone to see to the Ravenclaws which sets up Flitwick as being gone from the room while she tells her story, then she gives her story, making the assumption that Snape stunned Flitwick, then Lupin says that Snape might have killed she and Luna, then later Harry sees Flitwick and we are told about how Flitwick appears to have recovered from his "collapse." A "big point" isn't really the word to use, but JKR sets up Flitwick's being out of the scene, then tells the story with the assumptions, then refers to it later in another scene.
You say killing Dumbledore should be enough, but we are still arguing about it aren't we?
And Flitwick's being stunned or not has made, as far as I've ever seen, not a whit of difference to anyone who either thinks Snape's guilty or not. And it certainly wasn't needed to convince the characters who are already perfectly willing to believe Harry that Snape murdered DD.
So what's the harm of giving Snape one more crime.
There's no point in it. In fact, if Snape is loyal, then having him stun Flitwick in the back (in order for Flitwick to fall forward and get that bruise in front ), makes even a loyal Snape who would otherwise be acting with bravery that night, suddenly stunning an elderly wizard in the back.
So if Snape loyal, JKR will almost have to revisit the Flitwick collapse, because either the characters will have to be told why Snape stunned him in the back, or they'll have to be told he never stunned him at all. Either way, she will revisit it. What's the point in setting that up just so they can learn, "here's the reason Snape had to AK DD, and really isn't an evil murderer, and by the way, here's why he stunned Flitwick?" Much more interesting to have Harry learn early on that Snape didn't stun him at all and it's the first glimpse Harry gets that his assumptions are not necessarily correct.
And last, why did the narration say "collapse" after JKR had already gotten 99% of her readers (it seems to me) to believe that Snape stunned him. If he really did stun him, and everyone is so convinced of it, why didn't she let it read that way in the narration? It could have read "Flitwick had a large bruise on his forehead but seemed otherwise unscathed from Snape stunning him." But no. JKR didn't do that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Wandless Wizard - Dec 26, 2006 9:28 am (#1053 of 1629)
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. Snape is evil. E-V-I-L. He is not a good guy. He might fight with the good guys but he is just a lesser degree of evil than Voldemort. The lengths at which Snape goes to torment his non-Slytherin students, especially Harry and co, will forever preclude him from being good. Snape has a warped sense of nobility. In SS/PS, he felt he owed it to James, who he hated, to protect his son. So he kept Harry alive, only to make him miserable at every opportunity. Harry was a misused 11-year old boy who didn't even know his father, yet this paragon of virtue (sarcasm) decided to use his position of authority to mock and humiliate him. It is completely within his character to stun Flitwick from behind with the "noble" intentions of savng him from the fight above.
I agree that Flitwick confessing he was never stunned would be a juicy clue in the next book. However, there needs to be a reason for his collapse which your theory has yet to give. He was running and screaming and seemed perfectly healthy only to collapse mere seconds after telling Snape about the Death Eaters. Why? Why did he collapse? Why did he collapse at that convenient moment? Why was did his collapse last the entire fight? Why didn't Snape cast an Ennervate spell to bring him around?
And JKR does not need a long explanation to explain Flitwick. She doesn't need to reference it. Just say Snape had to act like a Death Eater for his cover and he only stunned people so he wouldn't have to kill them when he rejoined the other Death Eaters. Its a much shorter explanation than why Flitwick collapsed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 26, 2006 2:00 pm (#1054 of 1629)
Why? Why did he collapse? Why did he collapse at that convenient moment?
Given Flitwick's past history of falling over, it's more likely that he fell over and hit his head.
Professor Flitwick, the Charms teacher, was a tiny little wizard who had to stand on a pile of books to see over his desk. At the start of their first class he took the register, and when he reached Harry’s name he gave an excited squeak and toppled out of sight. PS/SS
There are numerous examples of Flitwick “squealing” or “squeaking,” but we could say that’s just his voice, except for some examples that show some of it to be his particularly emotional response.
‘It has happened,’ she told the silent staff room. ‘A student has been taken by the monster. Right into the Chamber itself.’ Professor Flitwick let out a squeal. Professor Sprout clapped her hands over her mouth. Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said. ‘How can you be sure?” ‘The Heir of Slytherin,’ said Professor McGonagall, who was very white, ‘left another message. Right underneath the first one. Her skeleton will lie in the Chamber forever.’ Professor Flitwick burst into tears. COS
It's easy for any chance spell or charm to knock him over.
Neville’s aim was so poor that he kept accidentally sending much heavier things flying across the room – Professor Flitwick, for instance. GOF
Flitwick often moves in excitable ways -- such as scurrying.
“Professor Flitwick went scurrying after them, his wand held out before him; he squeaked ‘Locomotor trunks!’ and Professor Trelawney’s luggage rose into the air and proceeded up the staircase after her, Professor Flitwick bringing up the rear.”
From “Snape’s Worst Memory” we find Flitwick prone to falling over even when Snape and the Maruaders were teens
“Over a hundred rolls of parchment zoomed into the air and into Professor Flitwick’s outstretched arms, knocking him backwards off his feet. “ ~ OOTP
And he continues to fall over easily in HBP
“Lost in visions of this happy prospect, he flicked his wand a little too enthusiastically, so that instead of producing the fountain of pure water that was the object of that day’s Charms lesson, he let out a hose-like jet that ricocheted off the ceiling and knocked Professor Flitwick flat on his face.” HBP
Below, he must have fallen over again as he’s usually on his stack of pillows, but ends up under the table.
‘Now, now, boys,’ squeaked Professor Flitwick reproachfully. ‘A little less talk, a little more action ... let me see you try ...’ Together they raised their wands, concentrating with all their might, and pointed them at their flasks. Harry’s vinegar turned to ice; Ron’s flask exploded. ‘Yes ... for homework ...’ said Professor Flitwick, re-emerging from under the table and pulling shards of glass out of the top of his hat, ‘practise.’ HBP
I think it’s pretty clear that Flitwick is excitable and is apt to fall over. Very likely, he fell over in Snape’s office, only this time he hit his head and got knocked out.
Oh, and another thing to "get straight." JKR has not revealed whether or not Snape is evil.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Wandless Wizard - Dec 26, 2006 2:27 pm (#1055 of 1629)
Yes she has revealed he is evil. She has not revealed whether he is actually working for the Order or Voldemort. She has not revealed how evil he really is. But nothing she can write will ever convince me he is anything but evil. He is a teacher who is deliberately cruel to the children he teaches. That is evil. Dolores Umbridge is also clearly evil, but she is not a death eater or working for Voldemort in any way. She is none the less evil. Same goes for Snape.
Was Flitwick ever knocked unconscious in all those times he fell over? So why now? Also in every example where Flitwick fell down but one that you gave, Flitwick was knocked over by a spell. What spell knocked him down this time if not one by Snape? Did he Accio a hundred test papers? I just don't buy that he managed to evade Death Eaters, sprint down to see Snape, and stop to tell Snape what was happening. After doing all that without falling, he suddenly falls down so badly he is knocked unconscious for several minutes (long enough to miss the battle). Maybe that is why he went to check on the students rather than recount that very embarrassing story to everyone in the clinic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 26, 2006 4:39 pm (#1056 of 1629)
In PS/SS Flitwick fell simply from excitement .
In OOTP, parchments flying into his arms caused him to fall.
In HBP a ricocheting jet of water knocked him over.
Also in HBP, a flask exploding somehow was the catalyst for him falling under the table. I doubt if it was the impact, as Ron and Harry weren't affected.
By the way, I am fairly convinced Snape didn't stun Flitwick, but that doesn't mean some other incident didn't occur that accidently knocked Flitwick over. He seems beset by such incidents.
Yes she has revealed he is evil. She has not revealed whether he is actually working for the Order or Voldemort. She has not revealed how evil he really is. But nothing she can write will ever convince me he is anything but evil.
You are clearly convinced he's evil, but many people are in no way convinced. JKR has not "revealed" that Snape is evil. She has included many incidents that lead many to believe he's evil, but she hasn't "revealed" any such facts. There's quite a difference.
After all, there are many (not so much on this Forum) who think Dumbledore is awful because of all that he has allowed to happen. Certainly JKR has included many incidents that lead people to that conclusion. But that doesn't mean she's "revealed" it.
In any case, your evidence of "evil" is basically unfair teaching practices and insulting certain children. If that's how you define evil -- well, that's your opinion of course. There are levels of what is "cruel." It's cruel to insult a kid's parent to their face. But I wouldn't call it "evil" by any means. Umbridge using a quill to force a kid to cut words into his own hand for hours at a time -- that's evil. There are gradations of cruelty, after all. But that question of Snape's being "evil, but loyal" is really for another thread and has little to do with whether or not Flitwick collapsed or was stunned.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Dec 27, 2006 10:36 am (#1057 of 1629)
If being snarky is evil, a lot of us here qualify. Snape is a gray character to me. I can see him going either way. if we're going to talk about unfair teaching practices, well, most of the teachers at Hogwarts are incompetent teachers. Even McGonagall, who is one of the best, snaps at Neville not to let anyone at Durmstrang know he can't do a switching spell. Teaching techniques cannot possibly define evil for me, personally. And they have nothing whatsoever to do with Dumbledore's death, as I see it. This discussion might go better on the Snape thread. But honestly, if some of you think Snape is evil based on his teaching, you should meet some of the BOSSES I've had!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Wandless Wizard - Dec 27, 2006 11:20 am (#1058 of 1629)
Maybe evil was too strong of a word. He is not Voldemort evil. My point was he is not a nice guy. Regardless of for whose side he ends up working, he is not a nice guy. It isn't his teaching methods. It is that he takes delight in using his position of authority to mentally tortue children. McGonagall made a comment under stress. She doesn't enjoy tormenting Neville. Snape enjoys it. If he could get away with it, he'd make Harry carve all sorts of things in his hand. But I personally think making Harry catalogue all his dead father's and godfather's misdeeds while at Hogworts was worse than what Umbridge did. Anyway, the point was, Snape is not above cursing someone from behind to get them out of his way, even someone on his side. This is the guy who invented Dark Arts curses for fun and joined the death eaters. Snape isn't the type to rush into things. He knew what the Death Eaters were about when he joined. Something made him change his mind. But he is still the same guy who joined. Second thoughts or not, he is no white knight.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Dec 27, 2006 8:43 pm (#1059 of 1629)
Sorry to derail your discussion, but I have a question about Flitwick I asked on his thread a while back and got no reply (it's buried in the Staff folder), so since Flitwick's being discussed here, I'll ask it here. Is there actual canon that he definitely was a dueling champion or just Hermione's "I heard Flitwick was a dueling champion when he was younger" comment? (Emphasis added.)
Some of the arguments for Evil!Snape's actions on the night of Dumbledore's death refer to Snape trying to keep Flitwick out of the action because Flitwick was a dueling champion. I can't recall any canon other than the rumor Hermione "heard" for this tidbit. I know Hermione often speaks for Jo, but this smacks of a gossipy rumor about a teacher not a fact recited from Hermione's reading. Just wondering if I've overlooked something more firm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 28, 2006 5:41 am (#1060 of 1629)
Mediwitch,
While looking for incidences about Flitwick for one of my recent posts, I at least glanced at practically every reference to him in the books. I only saw that one reference to being a dueling champion. So, no, I don't think we can know it for sure -- it could have been just a rumour.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 28, 2006 5:58 am (#1061 of 1629)
But, realistically, what are the chances that Rowling will hark back to a bit of color text Hermione threw out in CoS and tell us it isn't really so after all? I'd say the chance is so close to zero it might as well be zero. Don't forget that Rowling is writing a story, these are her characters, and bits of information she gives us are there for a reason, even if it is only to add a bit of color. Hermione isn't a real girl. She is a literary creation imparting literary information.
Flitwick is a former dueling champ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Dec 28, 2006 10:10 am (#1062 of 1629)
I believe so too, Mrs. Brisbee. Hermione generally imparts correct information, so why would she not be correct this time? On the whole, I don't believe this dueling champion information is that important for us to know - it just adds a bit of interest to Flitwick's character.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Dec 28, 2006 12:12 pm (#1063 of 1629)
I agree that we're unlikely to find out that "guess what, Flitwick wasn't really a dueling champ!" Why would that be said in Book 7? However, I think given all the examples of Flitwick being knocked over by all sorts of things and apparently being unable to shield against the accidental spells that go on around him, he may have lost the quick reflexes that would surely be necessary for a dueling champion.
I am quite willing to believe that Flitwick was knocked out by something accidental. After all, he's prone to being knocked over that way -- only a short step away to hitting his head and getting knocked out. I just don't think we're going to find that Snape really stunned him.
In fact, I think JKR has used Flitwick's frequent problems with accidental falls to create the perfect real reason for Flitwick's "collapse," but give the characters another opportunity to think ill of Snape and assume he did it without asking Flitwick if he didn't just have another one of his unfortunate accidents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Dec 28, 2006 12:18 pm (#1064 of 1629)
I think the only times we've seen Flitwick fall over is when he is effected by a spell, or when he is surprised (falling when he sees Harry's name). To my knowledge we have never seen him collapse for no immediate reason-- much less with enough injury to cause unconsciousness.
So what would cause Flitwick enough shock in Snape's office that he would "collapse"?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DJ Evans - Dec 28, 2006 4:39 pm (#1065 of 1629)
Mediwitch: I can't back this up right now (my HP stuff is still in a packing box) but last year in a chocolate frog I got Flitwick's wizard card. If I remember right, it states on the back that he was a dueling champion. Aren't they considered canon? I believe Jo herself wrote all the info for them, didn't she?
Later, Deb
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Dec 28, 2006 7:18 pm (#1066 of 1629)
Flitwick definitely fell hard enough forward to caused a bump on his forehead. But what that meant to the events of Dumbledore's death, we may never know.
As for the events immediately following Dumbledore's death, doesn't anyone else think it's interesting that Harry tried to crucio Snape, and Snape prevented him from using an unforgivable curse in the open where others might see? He didn't just DEFLECT it. He stopped him before he finished uttering the words. Does that have potential to mean anything?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Wandless Wizard - Dec 28, 2006 7:31 pm (#1067 of 1629)
It can mean two things, Die.
1) Snape didn't want to be Crucio'd. Even righteous anger, according to Bella, hurts for a little bit.
2) Snape didn't want Harry to walk down the wrong path by using the Dark Arts. It would be a Dark Side of the Force analogy. "Once you go down the Dark Path, forever will it consume your destiny". Harry needs to remain pure and good to defeat Voldemort.
That whole fight can be looked at from the same two angles. Snape could have been taunting and mocking Harry cause he is evil and enjoys it. Snape also could have been teaching Harry. To me, it looked strongly like the latter. That scene more than anything has me thinking Snape is still on the Order's side.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Dec 28, 2006 7:35 pm (#1068 of 1629)
Die Z - This was pondered a lot on old threads and, of course, the potential of what it means depends on you. I, being a fan of Severus, view it as part of his commission to watch over Harry. In that scene he is actively teaching Harry, reminding Harry, that he *must* master non-verbal spellcasting. Yes, they loathe eachother but for very complex and misinformed reasons. That scene, to me, reinforces my belief that Severus is not in allegiance to Vold. What do you think?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Dec 28, 2006 8:00 pm (#1069 of 1629)
That scene, to me, reinforces my belief that Severus is not in allegiance to Vold. What do you think? --- me and my shadow
Severus has issues.
I often find myself thinking that Severus doesn't know which side Severus is on. What will teach me the most about knowing Severus's allegiance is knowing just what Malfoy's Task was and whether or not Severus knew what it was, or was merely guessing when he took the Vow.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Dec 28, 2006 8:18 pm (#1070 of 1629)
Tom, yes he totally has issues. I would if I were in his shoes. I'm surprised his hair isn't falling out.
Besides the above scene, I could bore you to tears with my 99 reasons in HBP why I think Severus has "good" intentions (although that is what the road to hell is paved with), starting with Spinner's End and his supreme legilimency as he gazes out the window and into a tipsy Narcissa's mind, and ending with him releasing Harry from the body-bind spell on the tower before running down the stairs with Draco.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Dec 29, 2006 9:15 am (#1071 of 1629)
I'm surprised his hair isn't falling out.
Ah ha! - maybe it is the grease that is holding it in. LOL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Dec 29, 2006 12:20 pm (#1072 of 1629)
That's it! The stress of being a spy is causing Snape's hair to fall out and he's been using Rogaine for years!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Wandless Wizard - Dec 30, 2006 7:13 pm (#1073 of 1629)
I had an idea and wanted to see what you all thought. It is switching gears a little so forgive me. But hopefully it will yield some interesting discussion.
In the Leaky Cauldron interview, after the release of HBP, JKR explained the difference between James' death and Lily's in regards to the protection of Harry. Because Lily was given a choice, it invoked the ancient magic that protected Harry. James was going to die regardless, so his death did not. So the two elements for the ancient protective magic are love and choice.
Now, apply this to Dumbledore's death. At one point he tells Malfoy that it is his mercy that is important. He gives the impression he could stop Malfoy at any time. Yet he never makes a move. He stuns Harry, he chit-chats, and then he waits for Snape to come and kill him (an over-simplification of course but you all know the story). Now we don;t know his exactly what happened, which is the whole reason for this thread. However, it is possible that Dumbledore is choosing to die in order to save lives. Malfoy could possibly be tasked with killing Dumbledore, so his life is forfeit if he fails. Snape took the Unbreakable Vow. If Malfoy’s task was to kill Dumbledore, Snape's life is also on the line. Finally Harry is immobilized in the corner. Dumbledore used his one moment of reaction time when Malfoy burst through the door to immobilize Harry. That could have saved Harry's life and cost Dumbledore his. So, if Dumbledore did indeed make a choice to die, do any of these 3 get his protection?
There would also need to be love. Is Dumbledore's love for all his students enough to protect Malfoy? Does Dumbledore have any plutonic friendship love for Snape? Is it enough? He obviously loves Harry having watched him grow up. Is that enough?
So, what do you think? Will we be seeing the ancient magic thwart Voldemort again? Is that why he chose to die? How will it play out? We obviously don't know enough about the vow, Dumbledore's intentions or what happened on that tower to say for sure. But I think their is a chance that any of those 3 characters could be protected by Dumbledore's sacrifice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
shadzar - Dec 30, 2006 10:31 pm (#1074 of 1629)
The love thing wears off, i think; when the wizard or witch comes of age... 17. Snape wouldn't be able to be protected even through DD love of Hogwarts and its denizens.
Possibly the fact that DD didn't want to kill anyone in his life is why he didn't act towards Draco. This also saved the lives of the 3 (Harry, Draco, and Snape) and possibly others that were fighting below.
I think the fact is dD was getting old and knew Harry was the only one who could defeat Voldy, and DD was not going to be able to turn him from the dark path he had been on. DD had become useless in this war save for being able to protect his beloved school and its students one last time.
hope everyone has had a happy holidays so far.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Wandless Wizard - Dec 31, 2006 9:57 am (#1075 of 1629)
No, the love thing does not wear off, or at least we have no evidence of it. The home protection wears off (as long as you can call home whereever your mother's blood resides). That was an extra enchantment that built upon Lily's sacrifice. The protection in Harry's skin is separate. My evidence for this is that Voldemort overcame the skin protection when he used Harry's blood. However ,Dumbledore still wants Harry to return to the Dursley's one last time to renew the home protection before his 17th. If the two were one and the same, the home protection would have worn off with the skin protection. Therefore it is still possible for any of those 3 characters to have Dumbledore's protection in his skin past the age of 17. Voldemort knowing he overcame Lily's protection could very well AK Harry once again and once again have the spell rebound. Only this time, Harry will have destroyed his Horcruxes.
Anyway, just a theory.
Last edited by Lady Arabella on Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1076 to 1100
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 10:47 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 1, 2007 4:51 pm (#1076 of 1629)
DD had become useless in this war save for being able to protect his beloved school and its students one last time.
I can't agree that DD was useless. He still had knowledge and power, and for all the talk of his being old, his adventure to the cave seemed to indicate the rumors of his aging and fragility were not entirely accurate (he moved like a far younger wizard in his swim in the cave). As for killing Malfoy, if DD could have acted (and I think he could have) he certainly had other means of stopping Malfoy that had nothing to do with killing him.
It also diminishes his sacrifice to say he was useless anyway.
Wandless- Interesting theory, but I tend to think that Jo has put special emphasis on a mother's love and sacrifice being this powerful. DD is wonderful, but I doubt his affection for Snape or Malfoy reaches the level of Lily's love for Harry. I doubt that DD's love for Harry approaches it either. Lily loved Harry because he was her son, and she would have died for him from the moment of his birth. DD has grown to love the rather extraordinary Harry, but this has happened over time because he came to know him as a wonderful wizard worthy of such affection. Mother's love is something quite different, and, I think, much more powerful.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 1, 2007 5:39 pm (#1077 of 1629)
Wandless, I used to think they were two different protections, but this quote seems to say otherwise:
“My question is why does Harry keep going back to the Dursleys, when he is closer to the Weasleys than he is to them?
JK Rowling: That has been explained in the books to an extent, it has been explained in the books but possibly you haven't yet finished this book when it is made very clear. Harry receives magical protection from his mother's sacrifice as long as he remains close to her blood. In other words, Aunt Petunia. That protection won't continue to hold once he is a man, once he turns 17 - he is no longer given that protective aura by his mother, so Dumbledore wants him to go back one more time to ensure the protection continues to his 17th birthday and after that he really is on his own.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Jan 1, 2007 9:12 pm (#1078 of 1629)
I think the fact is DD was getting old and knew Harry was the only one who could defeat Voldy, and DD was not going to be able to turn him from the dark path he had been on. DD had become useless in this war save for being able to protect his beloved school and its students one last time.
shadzar, I agree that DD was getting old and that he knew Harry must be the one to defeat LV (the prophecy and all that). But in no way was Dumbledore useless in the war. Remember ... Dumbledore was, is and always will be The Only One He Ever Feared. The only one that the greatest dark wizard in the world feared.
No matter how old, feeble or whatever DD would get, Tom would still be afraid of him, and him alone -- which makes Albus Dumbledore a formidable weapon (psychologically at the very least) on the anti-Voldemort side as long as Dumbledore - in any state of health - lives ... er, lived.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Jan 2, 2007 8:49 am (#1079 of 1629)
Me and my shadow: Wandless, I used to think they were two different protections, but this quote seems to say otherwise:
“My question is why does Harry keep going back to the Dursleys, when he is closer to the Weasleys than he is to them?
JK Rowling: That has been explained in the books to an extent, it has been explained in the books but possibly you haven't yet finished this book when it is made very clear. Harry receives magical protection from his mother's sacrifice as long as he remains close to her blood. In other words, Aunt Petunia. That protection won't continue to hold once he is a man, once he turns 17 - he is no longer given that protective aura by his mother, so Dumbledore wants him to go back one more time to ensure the protection continues to his 17th birthday and after that he really is on his own.”
Wow, that does imply something very different from what Dumbledore said in the book! Dumbledore never said Lily's protection would come to an end, only that the protection (that he placed) on Privet Drive would end. Now I am both confused and annoyed, because I think the books should be clear on these matters, and I hate it when interviews seem to contradict the books. How is Harry going to interpret what Dumbledore said?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 2, 2007 9:28 am (#1080 of 1629)
Wow, that does imply something very different from what Dumbledore said in the book! Dumbledore never said Lily's protection would come to an end, only that the protection (that he placed) on Privet Drive would end. Now I am both confused and annoyed, because I think the books should be clear on these matters, and I hate it when interviews seem to contradict the books. How is Harry going to interpret what Dumbledore said?
I always thought it was the same protection. However, I had interpreted DD's comments to mean that he had somehow worked a spell so that Lily's sacrificial protection -- which created protection for Harry at the time of her death -- could be extended to Harry over the period of his childhood through someone near to Lily and Harry in blood, that is Petunia.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Jan 2, 2007 9:34 am (#1081 of 1629)
Mrs B, I totally know what you mean. Though I don't think Harry will have any problem interpreting it, as JKR thinks it's perfectly clear how the protection works.
Part of the problem is that Dumbledore seems to explain things in bits and pieces over multiple books, so it's hard to get a sense of the whole picture. You may be correct that the JKR contradicts the books in her interviews. Is Dumbledore saying that he placed additional protection on 4 Private Drive, separate from the protection Lily conferred on Harry's body. Lily's and Dumbledore's protections, both, will end when Harry turns 17. Perhaps I'm just stretching it to justify it!
I'm going to continue my ruminations over on Lily's thread.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 2, 2007 4:16 pm (#1082 of 1629)
wynnleaf, my sentiments exactly.
I wasn't nearly as devastated by this quote as I was by the Radio City quote about DD not pulling a Gandalf. I am still in denial. All those posts trying to make sense of things... the AK hit the locket and protected DD's body... the Draught of Living Death... the smoke at the funeral hiding his getaway... it's so unfair. I cannot accept he's only going to be available as a headmaster portrait and a chocolate frog card.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Jan 2, 2007 5:39 pm (#1083 of 1629)
Never underestimate the power of chocolate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 2, 2007 6:35 pm (#1084 of 1629)
I cannot accept he's only going to be available as a headmaster portrait and a chocolate frog card.
I suspect that in whatever state of death (proper or improper) DD is in, we won't be hearing anything from him -- portrait, chocolate frog, ghost, or anything -- until very late in the book. I just can't believe JKR will have him divulging things early on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 2, 2007 8:19 pm (#1085 of 1629)
wynnleaf wrote - I just can't believe JKR will have him divulging things early on.
You probably meant divulging to Harry and I agree. But I'm guessing he'll be communicating with McGonagall in the office, and I believe he'll have portraits in other places (Hog's Head with Aberforth; Order Headquarters; a new location that will prove important) and we, as Harry's point of view, will find out later.
Yet I can't help but *hope* DD doesn't need portraits to "appear" to people. Just like he didn't need an invisibility cloak to "disappear".
I wonder if DD decided to become a ghost, and will be one of the Deathly Hallows. I suppose that would be similar to pulling a Gandalf. However, JKR didn't say DD wouldn't be pulling an Obi Wan...
(edited for grammar)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 5, 2007 6:57 pm (#1086 of 1629)
OK all, get your dung bombs ready!! I had been gone from the forum for about 5 months. About 2 weeks ago I decided to catch up. So needless to say I have read enough posts in the last 2 weeks to last me awhile. It would have been easier to reread all 6 books again.
This was my last thread to get caught up on and just happen to be the largest. I am not going to pretend that I read all 1085 posts but as an auditor I did do a statistical analysis and read several hundred. I now have some questions for the group and would like for you to reserve your dung bombs if I go over something that was not in one of the 273 posts that I read.
1. Has it been discussed whether Snape could have lifted his "death stopper" off Dumbledore using wandless magic. I know that this was one of the first points discussed in HBP and was still around at the end after the battle when Snape told Harry Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed. Could the argument heard on the edge of the forest have been about what Snape would do in the end and exactly when?
2. This seems more likely to me because Dumbledore could have irritated one of the other DE's on the tower to do him in and gotten Draco away without committing the unspeakable. But he seemed to be waiting for and almost pleading with Snape to finish the job as they had agreed, however reluctantly.
3. Finally, I was struck by the white Phoenix that Harry thought he saw burst from the flames upon the table where Dumbledore's body had been laid. Did it strike anyone else that this was exactly how DD's Phoenix regenerated itself?
OK Have a go at me. Those of you that do I won't blame you. Its my fault for not keeping up with the discussions. But those of you who have kept up. Have these items been discussed?
Mickey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 7:25 am (#1087 of 1629)
Actually, Mickey, I think two of your points have not yet been made in this thread.
1. Yes, we've discussed that Snape could have removed some sort of "stoppered death" from DD. There's a theory that DD would have died from the ring horcrux and Snape did something that "stoppered death," but which couldn't last forever and DD was released from that on the tower.
2. You made a new point I can't remember seeing before. If DD just wanted to die without Draco being the one to kill him, he could have pushed the other Death Eaters to do it -- or at least tried. Any sort of aggressive action when they first entered the tower could have gotten them to fire on him. Why wait for Snape? One would think this would protect Draco and Snape, and Snape could still have lead the other DE's away from the castle, but without being supposed by all to be a murderer.
3. People have discussed the phoenix rising over the tomb, but not that it was similar to DD's phoenix that he creates in his patronus. I'll have to read over the descriptions. If you'd like to print them out, it might be helpful for discussion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 8:32 am (#1088 of 1629)
If DD just wanted to die without Draco being the one to kill him, he could have pushed the other Death Eaters to do it -- or at least tried. Any sort of aggressive action when they first entered the tower could have gotten them to fire on him. Why wait for Snape?
To protect Draco and Harry. DD had no idea how long it would take Snape to arrive, if he could make it at all. Getting himself killed before Snape's arrival would have left Draco and Harry vulnerable. If Draco didn't kill DD, a DE did, and then made his escape with the DEs, he would have had to face LV alone and unprotected. Also, Draco may have remembered the two brooms and Harry may have been exposed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 11:52 am (#1089 of 1629)
Getting himself killed before Snape's arrival would have left Draco and Harry vulnerable.
Good point.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 6, 2007 4:38 pm (#1090 of 1629)
While it may be flawed, the thought that Dumbledore could have induced one of the Death Eaters present to kill him is worth some thought. It would have saved both Draco and Snape. Draco would have been alright with the death eaters. Harry might have gone berserk, but might have come out okay, since he was under a cloak. Risky, yes, but better than making Snape a murderer.
Dumbledore lead Draco in a rather detailed conversation. On the tower. With Draco pointing his wand at Dumbledore and thinking of killing him. With a serious fight going on below them. Why did Dumbledore keep Draco talking?
In the time they were talking, Dumbledore could have neutralized Draco, (Dumbledore doesn't need a stinking wand,) sealed the door, unfroze Harry, and all escaped off the tower on the brooms.
It seemed like Dumbledore was giving Snape time to get there. Yet Harry hadn't even gone for Snape. How did Dumbledore know Snape was coming?
Snape was ready and waiting in his office, in spite of the late hour. When Flitwick got to Snape, Snape left in a hurry and went straight to the tower. Flitwick didn't know anyting about the tower; he wanted help with the big fight. How did Snape know to go to the tower? We didn't see Dumbledore send a patronus-gram to Snape.
Something strange there. Sounds like Dumbledore had something planned and Dumbledore had some way to signal Snape. Didn't Dumbledore's wand go over the tower wall? Maybe it went to Snape?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 5:06 pm (#1091 of 1629)
Soul Search,
I, too, think DD was waiting for Snape to get there. But I think the greater probability is that they both knew that Draco would try to lure DD to the tower. The DE's on the tower didn't seem surprised to see Snape. I've wondered if he didn't get info from another DE about at least some of the plans, and that therefore he and DD knew Draco would try to lure him to the tower.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 7, 2007 7:30 am (#1092 of 1629)
wynnleaf,
... the greater probability is that they both knew that Draco would try to lure DD to the tower.
I agree. That seems to make the most sense. Dumbledore was stalling Draco, figuring that Snape would realize Death Eaters were in the castle and come straight to the tower. Which he did.
The point remains, though, that Dumbledore had choices: neutralize Draco and escape; let a Death Eater kill him, fight the Death Eaters, ... . He chose to delay, stalling Draco and the arriving death eaters, and wait for Snape. He seems to have wanted Snape to kill, or appear to kill, him.
Sounds like something worked out in advance. And Snape opposed that plan.
I note that Harry was at risk as soon as Dumbledore's spell on Harry lifted. Dumbledore had to know that Harry would go berserk at his death by Snape. Snape quickly cleared the tower of Draco and the death eaters before Harry could come around and fight. Snape had to have known that Harry was there. Otherwise, there was no reason for Snape to hurry everyone away. Snape didn't even want the tower death eaters to join the fight below. He shouted that the deed was done and for everyone to escape Hogwarts. Surely, a few more death eaters could have turned the tide of the fight.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 7, 2007 8:03 am (#1093 of 1629)
Snape hurried out because he feared the Ministry were on their way, or so he said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 7, 2007 8:18 am (#1094 of 1629)
Snape hurried out because he feared the Ministry were on their way, or so he said.
It made a convenient excuse. But when you think about it, if Snape was on LV's side and didn't realize Harry was on the tower, those moments on the tower after AKing DD would be a perfect opportunity to take at least a few seconds and reassess. After all, Snape had run straight through the fighting below. Wouldn't some questions like, "who have we lost?" or "where are the rest?" or some other comments been in order? But the impression is that Snape wanted everyone out ASAP.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 7, 2007 8:57 am (#1095 of 1629)
Dumbledore made the choice to wait for Snape, who would carry out the plan for Sanpe to (appear) to kill Dumbledore. KNOWING HARRY WOULD SEE SNAPE KILL DUMBLEDORE!
Harry had been obsessing about trusting Snape for most of the six books, and especially in HBP. Harry had just discovered that it was Snape who revealed the prophecy to Voldemort. What was Dumbledore thinking!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 7, 2007 3:16 pm (#1096 of 1629)
Soul Search,
Excellent, excellent questions. I've been thinking about that for some time.
1. I think DD really needed (for some mysterious reason), Snape to be the one that AK'd him. Whether to convince LV, to perform some sort of unknown magic while doing the AK, whatever - we don't know. But he needed it to be Snape, not just any Death Eater.
2. I think this was planned. Both seemed to know that they'd meet on the tower. Perhaps, as I said earlier, Snape had gotten some info from other DEs. When DD left through Hogsmeade he was blatantly making sure people saw him leave. When he called in extra Order members - most especially Lupin - to patrol the area that Harry had been watching for months without ever seeing Order member there -- DD made it clear that he thought an attack might occur that night. All those Order members and staff were patrolling, but not Snape. DD knew Snape would be in his rooms.
3. But I don't think he originally wanted Harry there. Assuming DD was working from a plan, what are the two things that DD attempts to do that don't work? Answer: send Harry away from him to Snape's rooms. Twice, in Hogsmeade and on the Tower, DD tried to send Harry to get Snape. He could have easily sent a patronus instead, yet he tried and failed twice to send Harry. I think he wanted to get Harry away, prior to getting Snape there. I don't think he wanted Harry to see it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 7, 2007 11:07 pm (#1097 of 1629)
Great posts. A few questions/comments:
# Would Severus's Dark Mark have burned when the Dark Mark appeared over the Tower?
# Does anyone still theorise the Blond DE with the bad aim was a Polyjuicer? If so, he could have been in the dungeons taking the potion and in on the plan. Who could he be?
# If Draco noticed the two brooms right away, you can bet Snape did and knew who rode in on it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Jan 8, 2007 6:27 am (#1098 of 1629)
This seems more likely to me because Dumbledore could have irritated one of the other DE's on the tower to do him in and gotten Draco away without committing the unspeakable. But he seemed to be waiting for and almost pleading with Snape to finish the job as they had agreed, however reluctantly.—MickeyCee
It's a good point that if Dumbledore wanted to die or was planning on dying he could have provoked a Death Eater to do it. Maybe Dumbledore neither wanted nor planned to die right then. The Death Eaters were planning on murder anyway, but maybe Dumbledore figured he'd leave it up to them to murder in cold blood, rather than spur them to action by "provoking" them. Then again, excepting Draco, the other Death Eaters weren't up on the Tower very long before Snape showed up. At that point murder by one of the Death Eaters was likely to have happened imminently anyway. It is also possible that Dumbledore hoped the Order would be able to break through and make the Tower-- which was far more likely than having Snape show up.
I note that Harry was at risk as soon as Dumbledore's spell on Harry lifted. Dumbledore had to know that Harry would go berserk at his death by Snape. Snape quickly cleared the tower of Draco and the death eaters before Harry could come around and fight. Snape had to have known that Harry was there. Otherwise, there was no reason for Snape to hurry everyone away. Snape didn't even want the tower death eaters to join the fight below. He shouted that the deed was done and for everyone to escape Hogwarts. Surely, a few more death eaters could have turned the tide of the fight. -- Soul Search
Dumbledore knowing how Harry would react to seeing him murdered by Snape, and knowing his spell would lift at his death, is good evidence that there was NOT a prearranged plan in effect.
Would Snape have known Harry was on the Tower? How could Snape have known Harry was on the Tower? If Dumbledore had told Snape that he would be leaving the castle that night so Snape needed to wait up in case he was needed, he might have told him that Harry was going with him. I think it's more likely he wouldn't tell Snape that Harry was accompanying him, but it is still a possibility (McGonagall seems to have known that Harry had left with Dumbledore. But then she is Deputy Headmistress, so she has a definite Need To Know about the whereabouts of her students). If Snape didn't know beforehand than seeing two broomsticks on the Tower would be meaningless-- neither broom was Harry's Firebolt, and for all he knew some of the Death Eaters had flown up to the Tower. If Snape did know, then yes, he is smart enough to conclude Harry might be on the Tower also. It would also mean that when Flitwick came to fetch Snape and he set out for the seventh floor, Snape was operating under the assumption that Dumbledore was NOT in the castle-- another strike against the preconceived plan theory.
But I don't think he originally wanted Harry there. Assuming DD was working from a plan, what are the two things that DD attempts to do that don't work? Answer: send Harry away from him to Snape's rooms. Twice, in Hogsmeade and on the Tower, DD tried to send Harry to get Snape. He could have easily sent a patronus instead, yet he tried and failed twice to send Harry. I think he wanted to get Harry away, prior to getting Snape there. I don't think he wanted Harry to see it. – wynnleaf
I don't think that adds up right, because Dumbledore on the Tower told Harry to go get Snape and "bring" him back-- so Harry would have been returning to the Tower by Dumbledore's instructions. In Hogsmeade, I don't think Dumbledore told Harry one way or another that he should or shouldn't accompany Snape back.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 8, 2007 7:00 am (#1099 of 1629)
I don't think that adds up right, because Dumbledore on the Tower told Harry to go get Snape and "bring" him back.
Yes, I've thought of that too, and for a long time assumed that meant that DD wanted Harry to be there. But the problem is that if the only reason he tried to send Harry to get Snape, was simply to get Snape and bring him back, he would have been far better served to use a Patronus message -- faster, safer, etc.
The fact that he does not use such a message, even after the first attempt to send Harry when he suddenly realizes that won't work and they need to go to the tower, makes it less likely that his only intent was to get Snape. It seems that there were more reasons for sending Harry (rather than a Patronus), and what could that be other than to get Harry out of the way?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Jan 8, 2007 7:19 am (#1100 of 1629)
Yes, that annoyingly under-utilized Patronusgram spell . Bugs me that it isn't used in situations it seems to have been made for.
Though I do think Dumbledore was feeling weak, maybe too weak to cast it in Hogsmeade when he first arrived. And it seems clear to me that he wanted Super!Healer Snape because he was ill.
I also think that if Dumbledore didn't want Harry on the Tower, he wouldn't have brought him up there in the first place.
But then, why not send a Patronusgram from up there? Was he just too weak again? Did he not want to chance the patrolling Order seeing it and intercepting the message? We saw with Tonk's Patronusgram that it is not really a secure method of communication, and someone other than the intended recipient can intercept the message. Why doesn't Dumbledore want the other Order members to know about his condition?
I just don't see any indication though that Dumbledore didn't think Harry should be up on the Tower with him. If he sent him away to get Snape, but he would be coming back with Snape, then that would indicate that he doesn't mind Harry and Snape being together on the Tower. Which would indicate to me that Dumbledore wasn't expecting anything odd or extraordinary to happen because of Snape (other than getting help for his illness, that is).
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1101 to 1125
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 11:06 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 8, 2007 8:14 am (#1101 of 1629)
Not sure it matters to the discussion, but as it turns out Harry would not have been able to return to the tower.
Snape was able to pass through the blocking spell because he had a dark mark (a good surmise,) but if Harry had gone to fetch Snape, Harry could not have returned to the tower and would not have witnessed Snape AKing Dumbledore.
Of course, Dumbledore couldn't have known about the blocking spell, so wouldn't have known Harry could not have returned to the tower.
Why did Dumbledore go forward with the plan for Snape to AK him knowing that Harry would witness it?
All I can think of is that Dumbledore had prepared a full proof way for Harry to know that Snape was really and truly on his side. What is it? I have no clue.
I still don't quite understand the strategic value to Snape AKing Dumbledore. Yes, that would impress Voldemort and, maybe, place Snape even closer to Voldemort and more trusted by him, but how is that going to help Harry defeat Voldemort?
It doesn't look like Snape knows about the horcruxes. That would be too dangerous to Harry's quest, should Snape slip a thought of horcruxes in Voldemort's presense. Snape could not learn anything about the horcruxes from Voldmeort; to ask even a subtle, leading question would alert Voldemort ... dangerously.
What else could Snape do that would be so important that Dumbledore could justify his own death? I just don't see it. Yet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 8, 2007 9:02 am (#1102 of 1629)
There are a few things we seem to be forgetting:
1. When Harry and Dumbledore left the castle they DID NOT plan on returning by way of the tower. They left via the front gate and I am sure they expected to return the same way. The Dark Mark is what made Dumbledore return via the tower. So Snape or none of the members of the order would have expected Harry or Dumbledore to BE on the tower.
2. Dumbledore could have disabled Draco at any time while on the tower with a non- vocal charm or by disappearing. I still think Mrs. Brisbee that he had a plan and wanted Snape there to carry out his end of the deal. I believe the "stoppered death" potion that Snape had created was failing or had a time limit and Dumbledore knew his time had come. The "injury" along with his looking for the clues to the Horcruxes could explain his extended absences during the school year. By allowing himself to be finished off on his own terms he still maintains some control on the final outcome of the Harry/Tom battle to come via what I see as a plan on his part.
By having Snape fully within Voldemort’s trust and full time within his camp, Dumbledore and thus Harry would have a major source of information as to what is going on. With Snape being at Hogwarts and entrenched as a teacher, I am sure he missed alot of what Voldemort had planned. The details of Draco's plan are an example. This all assumes that Snape is still being true to Dumbledore and the order. HOW Snape is going to get the information to Harry and have him believe it is beyond me. Maybe Snape has a portait of Dumbledore within his Spinners End "mansion" and DD will be able to talk to him there. Hee, Hee.
I agree Soul Search, that Snape probably doesn't know about the horcruxes. It definitely would be too dangerous for both Snape and Harry for Dumbledore to have let that bit of information out.
Well that's my thoughts for the day. Dang all this thinking and on a Monday too. Cheesh, I need another weekend. NOW...
Mickey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jan 8, 2007 9:07 am (#1103 of 1629)
It doesn't look like Snape knows about the horcruxes. --- Soul Search
I'm not so sure of that, I don't see how Severus could have helped Albus with the cursed ring if he hadn't know about the Horcruxes. This might be taken as another indicator that Severus is working for the "good" side, because it will be very difficult (if not impossible) for Harry to defeat Riddle if Riddle knows that Harry knows. And once Riddle knows that the Ring is destroyed he will quickly deduce that the Diary is destroyed as well and start checking on the rest and then replace them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
T Vrana - Jan 8, 2007 9:38 am (#1104 of 1629)
Tom-DD said he already knew about the diary and was furious.
Mrs Brisbee- Excellent point on Tonks' Patronus being intercepted! That scene now makes much more sense. It was there not only so Snape could torment Harry, but to show intereception is possible. It now also makes sense why DD did not use it, and fits with the pre-arranged plan between Snape & DD, but no one else.
Soul Search- Snape did seem to know Malfoy's plan as the DEs were not surprised when he arrived. Amyscus addresses him without ever taking his eyes off DD. If this is the case, he may have also kown the barrier was part of the plan, and told DD. In sending Harry away (twice attempted as Wynnleaf pointed out), he would have summoned Snape but been able to return.
Given Harry's TERRIBLE occlumency skills, I really doubt DD wanted Harry to see the offer to hide Draco and his family, so I don't think he wanted him there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jan 8, 2007 10:23 am (#1105 of 1629)
I've always thought the big, blonde, Death Eater that was there that night might be part giant. If so, I expect Hagrid to perhaps be the one who gets even with him for his part in Dumbledore's death.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Jan 8, 2007 10:27 am (#1106 of 1629)
Dumbledore could have disabled Draco at any time while on the tower with a non-vocal charm or by disappearing.—MickeyCee
I disagree with "at any time", but he certainly could have frozen Draco instead of Harry at the start, and thus avoided becoming disarmed! I get from this that Dumbledore wanted to confront Draco.
I still think Mrs. Brisbee that he had a plan and wanted Snape there to carry out his end of the deal. I believe the "stoppered death" potion that Snape had created was failing or had a time limit and Dumbledore knew his time had come. The "injury" along with his looking for the clues to the Horcruxes could explain his extended absences during the school year. By allowing himself to be finished off on his own terms he still maintains some control on the final outcome of the Harry/Tom battle to come via what I see as a plan on his part.
I don't see any evidence that such a thing as a Stoppered Death Potion exists. And I can't imagine how orchestrating his own death is going to help. We would have to imagine that Dumbledore's life was of lesser value to the Wizarding World than his death is. I can't see it.
Mrs Brisbee- Excellent point on Tonks' Patronus being intercepted! That scene now makes much more sense. It was there not only so Snape could torment Harry, but to show intereception is possible. It now also makes sense why DD did not use it, and fits with the pre-arranged plan between Snape & DD, but no one else.-- T Vrana
Almost. I think it supports the idea that Dumbledore didn't want anyone else to know that Snape was healing him, including other Order members. Why? Not a clue. I don't think it fits with a pre-arranged plan for Snape to turn up and AK Dumbledore. Dumbledore would need to guarantee that Snape would turn up for such a plan to work, and he seems to have allowed for no reliable means of communication.
Snape did seem to know Malfoy's plan as the DEs were not surprised when he arrived. Amycus addresses him without ever taking his eyes off DD. If this is the case, he may have also known the barrier was part of the plan, and told DD. In sending Harry away (twice attempted, as Wynnleaf pointed out), he would have summoned Snape but been able to return.
That's a good point about the Death Eaters not being surprised at Snape's entrance. But, if Snape did know the plan, why did Dumbledore say he didn't expect Death Eaters? Why was Snape down in his office, seemingly oblivious until Flitwick showed up? I also remember his earlier frustration with Draco for not letting him in on his plans. I really don't think Snape knew the details of what was going on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 8, 2007 11:13 am (#1107 of 1629)
MickeyCee3948,
When Harry and Dumbledore left the castle they DID NOT plan on returning by way of the tower. They left via the front gate and I am sure they expected to return the same way.
Good point.
Either:
Dumbledore communicated with Snape, somehow. Although, if Dumbledore "told" Snape he was on the tower, then why did Snape wait for Flitwick to tell him about the fight before leaving for the tower.
Or,
Dumbledore and Snape knew the details of the attack plan and that it included setting the dark mark on the tower to attract Dumbledore. I think Dumbledore hinted at this in his talk with Draco.
Seems Snape and Dumbledore knew everything except how the death eaters were getting into the castle and about Madam Rosmerta. They knew that Dumbledore leaving the castle would trigger the invasion. They might have underestimated the number of death eaters who would participate, however. I wonder if they knew about Trelawney?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Jan 8, 2007 1:44 pm (#1108 of 1629)
There was quite the discussion about Prof. Flitwick's bonk on the head, here a while back, correct? Was Felix Felicis mentioned with regard to the events of that night? From Mugglenet I found an essay:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
“This is where Felix Felicis comes in. We know from Professor Slughorn that the drink of Felix Felicis “will find that all your endeavors tend to succeed” (p. 187). We also know that Ginny, Ron, and Hermione all drank Felix Felicis the night of Dumbledore’s death. So, when Ron says “I messed up, Harry,” and tells him how he let Draco and the Death Eaters pass, I wondered, how could something so unlucky happen to the drinker of liquid luck? Hermione joins in, saying that she was stupid not to realize that Snape had stupefied Professor Flitwick. But for someone waiting to catch Snape betraying the Order, how could liquid luck not help her out? The answer to both of these is that Felix Felicis was working to Ron and Hermione’s advantage.”
I thought this was an interesting point. However, perhaps this essayist puts too much faith in the potion. Slughorn says the user's endeavors "tend to succeed", not that it's guaranteed to work. Pretty interesting, though. HBP being about Snape, it's interesting that a potion is pivotal to two important scenes in the story.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Jan 8, 2007 7:13 pm (#1109 of 1629)
As for Felix Felicis, if the user finds that their endeavors tend to succeed, then we have to ask ourselves at what were Ron, Ginny, and Hermione endeavoring to succeed? Did Felix help them accomplish their goals?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 8, 2007 7:54 pm (#1110 of 1629)
Well they did survive a fight with a horde of DE's inside of Hogwarts with fewer injuries than they incurred in the MOM battle. Not bad if you ask me. I think you have to know what you want to succeed at if the Felix Felicis is to work. Since they were guarding but not really knowing what they were guarding aganist. I think the elixir did pretty well as advertised. JM2K's
Mickey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jan 8, 2007 8:07 pm (#1111 of 1629)
As for Felix Felicis, if the user finds that their endeavors tend to succeed, then we have to ask ourselves at what were Ron, Ginny, and Hermione endeavoring to succeed? Did Felix help them accomplish their goals? --- Mrs Brisbee
And the even more confusing addenda to that, as evidenced by Harry's circuitous route the night he acquired Sluggy's memory, is that the potion could help them achieve goals they didn't even realize they were pursuing. The potion could have helped them do things that might not be evident for quite some time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Jan 9, 2007 10:09 am (#1112 of 1629)
I should have included this portion of the essay:
If Snape was indeed evil, the potion should have coaxed Hermione, etc. into doing SOMETHING to delay Snape at least and it didn’t. This leads to the conclusion that the lucky thing to do was to let Snape succeed because he’s still working for the good side.
What do you think? Are the potion-inspired events as they played out by Hermione and Co. evidence that Snape is good?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 9, 2007 10:24 am (#1113 of 1629)
Who all took the Felix Felicis? There wasn't much left. Ginny did, for sure, and I think Ron also. Maybe Hermione, since Harry gave it to her with his instructions. But what about Neville and Luna? I don't think canon is quite clear on that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Jan 9, 2007 10:26 am (#1114 of 1629)
It occurs to me that the lucky part may have been that Severus didn't AK Hermione and Luna.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Jan 9, 2007 10:47 am (#1115 of 1629)
If Snape was indeed evil, the potion should have coaxed Hermione, etc. into doing SOMETHING to delay Snape at least and it didn’t. This leads to the conclusion that the lucky thing to do was to let Snape succeed because he’s still working for the good side.
I'm not sure if that holds true. Ron and Hermione were told to "watch" Draco and Snape by Harry. Did they ever expand on that and say exactly what they were attempting to accomplish? When Harry took the Felix Felicis, the potion helped him to accomplish the specific goal he had in mind. I don't think the potion defines "lucky" as generically helping the good side. It should be helping them achieve a specific goal. But what was that goal, beyond watching Draco and Snape?
It occurs to me that the lucky part may have been that Severus didn't AK Hermione and Luna.-- Steve Newton
That's quite possible. They were lucky to run into the Order patrolling, and they were lucky to keep getting missed by hexes. Felix does seem to try to lead the imbibers to the help they need and tries to keep them safe.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Jan 9, 2007 10:51 am (#1116 of 1629)
I believe it was Hermione, Ron and Ginny. I also thought it was Luna and Neville, but now I can't find it in the book.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Jan 9, 2007 12:03 pm (#1117 of 1629)
Right, Luna and Ginny did not get the Felix. At least Harry did not leave directions to give them any and there are no comments later about them being given some.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Jan 9, 2007 12:42 pm (#1118 of 1629)
Steve, you mean Luna and Neville
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jan 9, 2007 1:36 pm (#1119 of 1629)
Yes, Ginny got the Felix. She admits if she had not had it, she probably would have died.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Jan 9, 2007 5:42 pm (#1120 of 1629)
Thom, thanks for the correction. You are right. This is my last post of the day. I never thought that I would get to 10.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 9, 2007 6:28 pm (#1121 of 1629)
It's probably been discussed, but why is it certain that the Dark Mark appeared over the school solely because a DE killed someone? In Horace Slughorn chapter, DD says: "if the Death Eaters really had come to call, the Dark Mark would have been set over the house." It seems to say the Dark Mark might not guarantee a death, only the presence of a DE, which means Severus might have cast the Mark as a call to DD.
If memory serves, Severus doesn't use Patronus, so there would be little else he could do (that we know of) to warn DD. I think Severus knew the DE's were in the school beforehand, and, as has been mentioned, the DE's were not surprised to see Severus on the Tower, thus reinforcing a prior knowledge.
My point is I think Severus and DD had more communication going on there, and the DE's were less orchestrated within themselves, but Severus had foreseen and attempted to control the entire situation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 9, 2007 8:37 pm (#1122 of 1629)
Draco states that he set the death mark to draw Dumbledore up to the tower. I think anyone who wants to set the mark can do so, although we have only seen DE's do it. I don't think Snape would have used the death mark as a signal to DD. Good wizards seem to react extremely negatively to the mark. As they well should. In this case no one had been killed when it appeared. At least not for a few more minutes.
Mickey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Jan 10, 2007 12:43 am (#1123 of 1629)
Draco states that he set the death mark to draw Dumbledore up to the tower. I think anyone who wants to set the mark can do so, although we have only seen DE's do it.
Mickey, from GoF, Chapter 9, p.128 (Raincoast), Arthur Weasley says regarding the Dark Mark, "But I'll tell you this ... it was only the Death Eaters who ever knew how to conjure it. I'd be very surprised if the person who did it hadn't been a Death Eater once, even if they're not now ..."
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 10, 2007 6:47 am (#1124 of 1629)
It was not Draco who set the the dark mark, but the death eater Gibbon. Lupin says he came rushing back downstairs, probably because he didn’t want to meet Dumbledore alone.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 10, 2007 10:26 am (#1125 of 1629)
Yes, it was clear I thought that Gibbon set the mark and then left the tower.
We have no canon that Snape cannot conjure a Patronus, by the way. JKR refuses to tell his patronus or boggart, because it would reveal too much, but that doesn't mean he can't do a Patronus. Of course, there's been speculation that he can't. Just no canon.
As regards the Felix, I don't think Hermione having taken Felix, but not being trying to stop Snape, is a sign that Snape is on the good side (although, naturally I think he is). Taking the Felix did not enable Ron to stop any Death Eaters, only to not get hurt, but it doesn't make the DEs he fought "on the good side."
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1126 to 1150
Lady Arabella Sat May 21, 2011 11:23 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Jan 10, 2007 11:23 am (#1126 of 1629)
Wynnleaf, and others, I think you are right. There are clear hints that the kids weren't injured in this big fire fight because they took Felix Felicis. As a Snape supporter it was nice to consider, but on second look, it's just a stretch.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 10, 2007 12:33 pm (#1127 of 1629)
Wow, alot of good posts I caught up on. I'm still unsure about what happened on the tower, but the one thing I'm pretty certain about is that Dumbledore's death was not planned. If in fact Dumbledore wanted to be killed in front of DE/witnesses then why did Dumbledore want Harry to fetch Snape as soon as they arrived in Hogsmeade? Unless the Dark Mark was cast by Snape or a Dumbledore spy I don't see how any of it was planned. If Snape knew without being told to go to the tower it seems that he was on to what the DE plans were,not Dumbledore's.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 10, 2007 2:44 pm (#1128 of 1629)
We have no canon that Snape cannot conjure a Patronus, by the way. – wynnleaf
I specifically wrote he "doesn't" use a Patronus in order to avoid confusion. I believe it has been said that Severus does not use Patronus for reasons which we have yet to discover. I personally think it has to do with his "happiest memory" being of Lily pre-Worst Memory.
It is not definite that Gibbon set off the Mark. The quote is left very JKR-esque vague:
Lupin: "One of them, Gibbon, broke away and headed up the Tower stairs-"
“To set off the Mark?” asked Harry.
“He must have done, yes, they must have arranged that before they left the Room of Requirement,” said Lupin. "But I don't think Gibbon liked the idea of waiting up there alone for Dumbledore, because he came running back downstairs to rejoin the fight and was hit by a Killing Curse that just missed me."
Lupin doesn't know. Gibbon could easily have come back down quickly because the Mark was already there. He never said anything, conveniently, because he was instantly AK'd. I feel like I'm having deja vu, because I posted this exact thing many months ago and still believe it is one of the many misunderstandings the Order thought they witnessed.
Laura W., I think that quote you posted from GoF supports and foreshadows that Severus could have cast the Mark over the Tower.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 10, 2007 2:52 pm (#1129 of 1629)
I specifically wrote he "doesn't" use a Patronus in order to avoid confusion. I believe it has been said that Severus does not use Patronus for reasons which we have yet to discover.
M&M Shadow, we actually are never told in canon that Snape doesn't use a Patronus. In fact, he may frequently use one. It is just that JKR won't tell the readers, because it's too revealing for us. It may be that it's also too revealing for the characters, and therefore Snape actually doesn't use it, but we aren't ever told that.
If Snape set off the mark on the tower, how did Draco know it would be up there? One thing I think we know for sure is that Draco was not working together with Snape.
However, it would be possible for Snape to know the Mark would be set on the tower, if he'd learned it from other DEs prior to that night.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 10, 2007 3:37 pm (#1130 of 1629)
wynnleaf, I'm with you that there is no canon for a Severus Patronus one way or the other. And, although I tried to avoid confusion, it still lurks in my saying he had no other way to contact DD. I'm sure in an emergency, Severus would conjure a Patronus to notify DD of DE's in the school. But I do feel it is illustrated that Severus does not use Patronus in his comment about other ways to deal with Dementors, and his snide remark about Tonks's Patronus. Seems he isn't into them, to me. That said, I do believe Draco and the DE's intended to set the Mark, I just think Severus got to it first. We all know there could easily be many assumptions made by the Order that will be discredited in book 7. I like the idea of Severus having much more orchestration of the night's events than did Draco.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 10, 2007 8:13 pm (#1131 of 1629)
Me and my shadow, why do you think Snape had much more orchestration of the night's events than Draco? As wynnleaf said, we know Draco was not working with Snape.
It was Draco's big moment. He had finally succeeded in letting the Death Eaters in, and he wasn’t about to let Snape in on it.
I do not think that if Snape knew there were death eaters in the castle, he'd be sitting quietly in his room .He'd be taking a more active part in the proceedings, whichever side he's on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 10, 2007 8:27 pm (#1132 of 1629)
Not if he was waiting for a message from DD.
Mickey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 10, 2007 9:10 pm (#1133 of 1629)
I do not think that if nape knew there were death eaters in the castle, he'd be sitting quietly in his room. He'd be taking a more active part in the proceedings, whichever side he's on. -mona amon
I believe Severus knew DD went to the Cave and would be needing more injury-related assistance immediately upon returning. I don't think Severus knew about the vanishing cabinet scheme, otherwise DD would have known, too, but I feel before DD left for the Cave and instructed Harry to fetch his Cloak, DD went to see Severus. They made last-minute plans and DD told Severus not to leave his quarters until DD or Harry came for him (told to obey orders for his own good just as Harry was told). The Order had their duties as well, but regarding DD's covert operation with the Cave and the Ring prior, I think only Severus was aware.
Even if not for that, Severus couldn't leave his office and take a more active part with the Order, because he'd be up against DE's and ultimately that would be highly undesirable. I'd say vise versa is equally true. He wouldn't be a part of that scene.
I do believe Severus and DD had organised their plans quite well, and it might include Severus casting the Mark if emergency circumstances came about. I don't even know if a Patronus would have penetrated the Cave. Perhaps it would wait on the shore where DD had apparated...
Although I give Draco credit for coming up with the cabinets, and he disarmed DD (which wasn't hard considering DD was too busy freezing Harry to care), and the events went out of control by all accounts, I can't say Draco had a big moment. Or if he did, it was ever so fleeting.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Jan 11, 2007 12:21 am (#1134 of 1629)
Laura W., I think that quote you posted from GoF supports and foreshadows that Severus could have cast the Mark over the Tower (me and my shadow)
Actually, my only point in writing that was to affirm that it was cast by a DE or a former DE. That it isn't true that anyone who wants to set the mark can do so", as Mickey suggested.
I always thought it was Gibbon too. That part may turn out to be wrong, but I am sure that (as Jo had Arthur tell us in GoF), *whoever" cast the Dark Mark over the Tower was definitely a Death Eater or a former Death Eater. Guess that could be Gibbon, or Snape, or Draco - if Harry's right, and he has now officially joined the ranks; if he hasn't, that totally rules him out as a candidate for being the one who cast the Mark - or anybody else in the castle who falls into the "DE or former ..." category.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 11, 2007 3:15 am (#1135 of 1629)
Me and my shadow, I totally agree with the first part of your post. I too feel that DD informed Snape that he'd be going out on a dangerous mission, and that’s why he was waiting in his room ,dressed and alert.
But I do not think he set off the Dark Mark, simply because I don’t think he knew about the Death Eaters being in the castle. Letting the DEs in that night through the vanishing cabinets was Draco's plan, and he would not have shared this with Snape.
In short, I don’t believe he cast the Mark, because I don’t believe he knew there was any emergency to warn DD about.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Jan 11, 2007 5:57 am (#1136 of 1629)
Couldn't Harry, Ron or Hermione cast the Dark Mark now since they heard the incantation?
Not that they would want to...I just mean it probably isn't a spell that is commonly known. I'm sure it wasn't something that Death Eaters talked about.
Hey! We learned something really cool at last night's meeting!
There probably aren't a lot of wizards who were present when the spell was cast - at least those that are still alive.
I wonder if Harry could cast the spell to make Voldy think someone had died. Draco used the Mark in this way, so it wouldn't be a foreign concept.
Edit: Maybe that is one of the many reasons Harry had to overhear Draco's conversation with Dumbledore.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Jan 11, 2007 6:15 am (#1137 of 1629)
I think it probable that there are a few wizards about who can cast the Dark Mark. Most Aurors and many Ministry officials probably know how it is done; and as Haymoni pointed out, Ron, Harry, and Hermione could probably work it out with time since they heard the incantation.
But, the assumption that Gibbon cast the Dark Mark over the Tower is sound. He's the only one who went up to the Tower. Draco didn't go up until afterwards. Snape was in his office. No other Death Eaters or other persons went up to the Tower. There is no hint that anyone else went up to the Tower. At all. Zilch. Nada.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 11, 2007 7:00 am (#1138 of 1629)
I thought only a DE could cast the Dark Mark? Nope,I just checked and it doesn't say that. When I did a quick reread I noticed that it was mentioned a couple of times that a wand is required to cast the Mark, so I guess it cannot be done without one. I agree that it was probably Gibbons. I was a believer that Snape was on the good side until JKR announced that Dumbledore is dead. Now I am confused.
I don't think Dumbledore's death was planned. He asked for Snape as soon as they reached Hogsmeade so that Snape could help with his injury,I think. Draco said "He promised my mother" and Dumbledore said "of course,that is what he would tell you." I think this may mean Dumbledore didn't know about the vow.
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?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 11, 2007 7:41 am (#1139 of 1629)
The scenes where Harry is relating something about Draco gave me the impression that Dumbledore knew, generally, what was going on. He learned from Snape, who knew that Draco was tasked to get death eaters into Hogwarts and, later, to kill him. Harry goes over-the-top about Draco, his longtime enemy, so Dumbledore is a bit short with him.
Dumbledore knew that Draco was responsible for the necklace and poisoned meade, but not how it was done (Madam Rosmerta.)
It was Dumbledore's mistake to not listen to Harry. Again, it is Dumbledore's failing in being supremely confident in his own abilities and in underestimating the enemy. He also did this in SS (Voldemort already in Hogwarts and the protections on the stone), PoS (that anyone could open the chamber, etc.), GoF (that someone wanted Harry, not just to kill him).
Dumbledore had placed protections on Hogwarts so that none could enter. He couldn't imagine that some cabinets in the RoR would allow entry or that Draco would figure out a way to let death eaters in.
Well, he paid the price for his mistake in not listening to Harry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
TomProffitt - Jan 11, 2007 8:20 am (#1140 of 1629)
It was Dumbledore's mistake to not listen to Harry. --- Soul Search
In what way not listen to Harry, Soul Search? My impression when I read the scene on the Tower between Dumbledore & Draco was that Dumbledore had indeed listened to Harry. The problem, from Harry's perspective, was that Dumbledore just wasn't going to tell Harry what he was going to do about it and what he already had done about it. Dumbledore protects his sources and is very careful about what he lets different individuals know.
I'm the first to admit that Dumbledore makes mistakes, but I think he was listening to Harry in the case of Draco. I think Dumbledore's biggest mistakes come from the fact that even though he claims trust in a lot of people he seems to do very little in the way of actually trusting them with his plans and intentions. That is that he takes everything on himself to do, and now comes the time when he's not there to help and his allies aren't fully prepared to carry on without him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 11, 2007 8:55 am (#1141 of 1629)
TomProffitt,
In what way not listen to Harry, ...
Yes, Dumbledore heard Harry's words, but he did not listen to Harry's message. Harry was saying Draco was working on something and might succeed. Dumbledore couldn't possibly believe that a mere student could find a way around the protections he put on the castle.
Harry told Dumbledore Draco "whooped" from inside the RoR, signifying that he had succeeded in, whatever he had been trying to accomplish. Clearly, Dumbledore did not investigate the RoR and did not have anyone waiting outside its door, even though he did have Order members inside the castle. Dumbledore should have listened to Harry, perhaps even delayed their excursion until he, Dumbledore, could be sure that his students were safe. Rather a serious mistake on his part. Could have been a lot worse, if students had died.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 11, 2007 9:36 am (#1142 of 1629)
I think DD may have listened, and placed extra protection inside the castle, but may not have wanted that protection to impede Draco. DD needed two things:
1) To give Draco the opportunity to learn he was not a killer, and to have 'died' trying, so he had to let the plan go on.
2) To take Harry on a horcrux hunt, so he could not delay the trip to the cave, just in case...
Malfoy did not expect Fenrir, the only one who did any real damage, so DD did not expect Fenrir. I'm sure he felt confident that his Order could handle Alecto, Amyscus, Big Blond and Brutal face. Fenrir threw a wrench in the works, though. And he knew the students were not the target, so felt safe with the Order patrolling the corridors and the kids in their beds.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 11, 2007 9:41 am (#1143 of 1629)
That is exactally the impression I got,Soul Search. If Dumbledore already knew everything Harry was telling him he could have said "trust me" or something to let Harry know that he was on to it and not to worry without saying too much,revealing sources and such. In my opinion, he made Harry feel like the information he gave Dumbledore was blown off. Perhaps Dumbledore thought Harry's hatred for both Snape and Draco clouded his judgement in a biased way and therefore, didn't believe him.
As for Dumbledore wanting Snape the minute he arrived in Hogsmeade maybe he did have the real horcrux around his neck and needed Snape to destroy it, which is what some believe happened on the tower. But, why would Dumbledore be carrying around the R.A.B. fake? I cannot fit that in with that theory.
Another thing . . . .If Snape did destroy the locket horcrux and he also fixed the damages caused by the ring then I can't see how Snape would not know about the horcruxes.He'd have to know about them.Wouldn't he?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Choices - Jan 11, 2007 11:05 am (#1144 of 1629)
Maybe Dumbledore had the fake Horcrux to distract the DE's away from the real Horcrux that was perhaps around his neck. Clearly the note was written to Voldemort, so it makes sense that Dumbledore wanted someone to find it that could take it to Voldemort.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 11, 2007 11:40 am (#1145 of 1629)
I had felt that when Dumbledore sort of "blew off" Harry and his information and suspicions, it was because Dumbledore was already aware of most of what was going on, and had developed his own plans for how to deal with it. He didn't want to get into some long discussion with Harry about what Harry thought about it, or what Harry thought should be done.
I don't see that "trust me" works that well in this case. Harry doesn't trust Dumbledore in many instances and just saying "trust because I say so" hasn't worked in the past.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Jan 11, 2007 1:06 pm (#1146 of 1629)
Harry had problems with Mclaggen. He gave him a job to do, Keeper, and he kept trying to do everyone else's job. Dumbledore gave Harry a job to do, getting the memory, and he kept trying to do other people's jobs, like finding out what Draco was up to. I think that Dumbledore showed good restraint.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 11, 2007 5:34 pm (#1147 of 1629)
Madame Pomfrey, I feel DD told Severus about the horcruxes. No canon (just in case anyone wants to point that out, I'll do it first) but it's what I believe will be revealed.
mona amon, thanks for your response regarding Severus casting the Mark. Again, I am aware of no canon but it is my pet theory. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the following quote:
“We decided to put the Dark Mark over the Tower and get you to hurry up here, to see who'd been killed,” said Malfoy. "And it worked!"
“Well... yes and no... “ said Dumbledore.
This could simply mean DD was on his way to Severus for treatment regardless, but of course it can be interpreted many ways.
I feel quite sure DD and Severus both knew something 'big' was going to happen at the school. I even think DD baited the situation by strolling through the grounds, through Hogsmeade, etc.. And Rosmerta informed Draco DD had left, which wasn't part of DD's plan, but I don't think Rosmerta used the coin to inform Draco that DD was returning, because otherwise she would have told him Harry was with DD and it seemed clear on the Tower that Draco didn't know about Harry.
Steve Newton, I agree. DD is the mastermind and others have their place. Doesn't mean DD's perfect.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 11, 2007 6:20 pm (#1148 of 1629)
Too late to edit...
Regarding the locket being on DD's chest and preventing the AK, I think it is highly possible. To recap:
- DD and Harry land on the Tower and Harry looks up at the Mark. When he looks back at DD, DD is "clutching at his chest". He then tells Harry again to get Severus. He hadn't clutched his chest from the injury nor the potion before or since this instance.
- Just before Severus casts the AK, he stares at DD (Legilimens). DD then begs Severus, who raises his wand and AK's DD "squarely in the chest". DD flies into the air upon impact, unlike any other AK we've seen or heard of.
- When Harry picks up the locket from beside DD's fallen body, it had opened, "perhaps due to the force with which it had hit the ground." Not a very convincing reason.
It's all been said before but... any thoughts?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Jan 12, 2007 12:53 am (#1149 of 1629)
I thought only a DE could cast the Dark Mark? Nope,I just checked and it doesn't say that. (Madame Pomfrey)
Oh yes, it does. If you believe Arthur Weasley, that is. (And I do.)
From GoF, Chapter 9, p.128 (Raincoast), Arthur Weasley says regarding the Dark Mark, "But I'll tell you this ... it was only the Death Eaters who ever knew how to conjure it. I'd be very surprised if the person who did it hadn't been a Death Eater once, even if they're not now ..."
only the Death Eaters who ever knew how to conjure it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had felt that when Dumbledore sort of blew off" Harry and his information and suspicions, it was because Dumbledore was already aware of most of what was going on, and had developed his own plans for how to deal with it. He didn't want to get into some long discussion with Harry about what Harry thought about it, or what Harry thought should be done." (wynnleaf)
Oh my gosh ... (get ready for this) ... I totally agree with what wynnleaf wrote in this paragraph.
Harry told McGonagall about his suspicions that Malfoy was behind the cursing of Katie and the poisoning of Ron. McGonagall told DD of Harry's suspicions. DD told Harry that Minerva had informed him. Harry wants to know - demands to know - what DD plans to do about it. Dumbledore doesn't feel he has to give this information to Harry. (I agree with him on that, by the way.) Harry is understandably frustrated, thinking Dumbledore doesn't believe him and is therefore doing nothing. But nothing could be further from the truth. We see everything from Harry's point of view, so we don't know Dumbledore's plans - but that doesn't mean he has none. He just doesn't feel he has to confide in anyone, not even the great Harry Potter.
This is yet another example of how lonely it must be to be the greatest, wisest, most powerful wizard in the world. (sigh)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 12, 2007 3:16 am (#1150 of 1629)
“We decided to put the Dark Mark over the tower and get you to hurry up here,to see who'd been killed,” said Malfoy."And it worked!"
“Well...yes and no...” said Dumbledore.
These words are certainly puzzling, unless DD meant something like 'OK, you got me here alright, but that doesn't mean your plan worked'--Yes, so many ways to interpret!
Laura W, I too feel that Arthur Weasley was right regarding the casting of the Dark Mark, that only Death Eaters would know how to conjure it. Of course the Ministry officials were quite ready to suspect Winky of casting it during the Quidditch World Cup, but they are generally portrayed as a bunch of bunglers who get everything wrong.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1151 to 1176
Lady Arabella Sun May 22, 2011 11:16 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jan 12, 2007 5:42 am (#1151 of 1629)
Could Slughorn have done the Dark Mark? When Dumbledore told him it wasn't over that house, he only said he hadn't had time, not that he didn't know how to do it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 12, 2007 6:17 am (#1152 of 1629)
Die- I have wondered if Sluggy cast it as well, and staged the entire DD death scene. Recall his flare for the dramatic, but his inattention to detail. His 'death scene' was awash in blood, but no Death Mark. He has a little dragon blood left over. DD's death scene, has a fall from the tallest tower, a little trickle of blood, and glasses that were described as askew when he toppled over in the cave, still on his head and a little crooked. Also, Sluggy arrives in DD's office after the 'death' sweating and flustered, what has he been doing to get so worked up....?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Jan 12, 2007 8:39 am (#1153 of 1629)
Just fast pacing or running from the dungeons to DD's office. That's a lot of work for a guy that big.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 12, 2007 9:08 am (#1154 of 1629)
His office isn't in the dungeons...Harry goes up the marble staircase to get to Sluggy's party...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [
HR]Soul Search - Jan 12, 2007 9:11 am (#1155 of 1629)
Just because Dumbledore is really dead doesn't mean his fake death hadn't been planned.
Look what would have resulted. Snape would have been closer to Voldemort, and better able to get information on Voldemort's plans.
Dumbledore would have been thought dead, and out of the picture, but really alive and working behind the scenes. Looking for horcruxes, most likely.
What went wrong was the cave potion. Dumbledore was closer to death than anticipated. Snape could even be thinking Dumbledore is still alive.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 12, 2007 9:30 am (#1156 of 1629)
I thought only a DE could cast the Dark Mark? Nope,I just checked and it doesn't say that. (Madame Pomfrey)
Laura: Oh yes, it does. If you believe Arthur Weasley, that is. (And I do.)
Thanks for that, Laura. I thought I had read that somewhere, but didn't find it in The Dark Mark chapter of GoF.
T Vrana: I have wondered if Sluggy cast it as well, and staged the entire DD death scene. Recall his flare for the dramatic, but his inattention to detail. His 'death scene' was awash in blood, but no Death Mark. He has a little dragon blood left over. DD's death scene, has a fall from the tallest tower, a little trickle of blood, and glasses that were described as askew when he toppled over in the cave, still on his head and a little crooked. Also, Sluggy arrives in DD's office after the 'death' sweating and flustered, what has he been doing to get so worked up....?
I agree,T. Slughorn’s behavior when he met up with the house heads was odd/suspicious. As for him being able to cast a Dark Mark,how would he know how if what Arthur said is true? I don't think he has been a DE. Where was Slughorn during the tower/battle scene?
If the real locket was destroyed by Snape,why would someone place a fake? I can understand someone placing a decoy and taking the real,destroyed horcrux in order to cover for Snape,who needed Voldemort/DE to really believe he killed Dumbledore, but, why was the fake addressed to the Dark Lord? It would most certainly alert Voldemort to the fact that someone was on to his horcruxes. Maybe the fake was for Harry's eyes only. Maybe it is important to the plot that Harry believe Snape killed Dumbledore. I'm so confused.I want to believe Snape is on the good side, but I just can't.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 12, 2007 9:34 am (#1157 of 1629)
I don't think the fake locket is anything other than what it appears to be. For there to be a 'planted' fake locket with a letter from RAB, someone would have to have known there was a locket in the basin to begin with. I don't think DD or anyone other than RAB (or ARB if read like a monogram) and LV knew a locket was there.
Sluggy's behaviour was odd. Another oddity, he hesitated to say yes to the funeral, but he had just admitted that Hogwarts was as safe a place as any. So why the hesitation? Will it make a fake death/Draught of Living Death death, harder to hide.
Still clinging, a little, to the idea that Draught counts, or Jo was talking in real time...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 12, 2007 10:04 am (#1158 of 1629)
While Slughorn's actions do seem a bit suspicious, I don't see him taking any risks. I think, finally, giving Harry the memory took all the bravery Slughorn ever had.
Would Slughorn participate in a scheme to fool Voldemort into thinking Dumbledore was dead? Seems a bit out of character.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 12, 2007 10:20 am (#1159 of 1629)
Yes..and no . . . he does have a flare for the dramatic, and who would ever know he helped? Sluggy's worry about the horcrux memory is that LV knows he talked to Sluggy about it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 12, 2007 2:41 pm (#1160 of 1629)
Could Slughorn have done the Dark Mark? When Dumbledore told him it wasn't over that house, he only said he hadn't had time, not that he didn't know how to do it. - Die Z.
Nice catch, Die Z. I wonder why JKR chose to make a point of that exchange. This, coupled with Arthur's comment that a former DE could cast it, leaves me thinking these are crumbs left by JKR. I seriously doubt Gibbon cast the Mark. That whole recounting of events in Phoenix Lament chapter is comical. Very little of it will turn out to be accurate, in my opinion.
Speaking of comical, I am going to go count how many times the Blond DE is mentioned and post it here. I'm now thinking he wasn't a Polyjuiced Order member (or Rufus) but a DE that is "seeking asylum". Somebody out there must find him as interesting as I do...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 12, 2007 3:03 pm (#1161 of 1629)
I certainly do. I thought he may be a Dumbledore spy. His A.K.s were way too sloppy IMO.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Newton - Jan 12, 2007 3:42 pm (#1162 of 1629)
Laura W quotes Arthur as saying "it was only the Death Eaters who ever knew how to conjure it" abut the Dark Mark. My reading is that anyone can conjure the Dark Mark. Only the Death Eaters learned how. I think that anyone can. As I recall it many reputable wizards were ready to believe that Winky or Harry had cast it at the World Cup.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 12, 2007 6:17 pm (#1163 of 1629)
I'm with you Steve, no one but a DE would want to conjure it but it doesn't mean they couldn't.
Mickey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Jan 12, 2007 8:35 pm (#1164 of 1629)
So, Jo first wrote that Barty Crouch Sr. accuses Harry of conjuring the Mark (although "... none of the other Ministry wizards apart from Mr. Crouch seemed to think it remotely likely that Harry, Ron or Hermoine had conjured the skull": p.117, Raincoast), and that Amos Diggory accuses Winky of throwing up the Dark Mark.
Then Jo had Arthur Weasley say, "...precious few wizards know how to do that spell ..." p.112 (Raincoast), and "But I'll tell you this ... it was only the Death Eaters who ever knew how to conjure it. I'd be very surprised if the person who did it hadn't been a Death Eater once, even if they're not now ..."
I wonder if she realized that she was contradicting herself. (shrug)
I still go with Arthur. Between what Sirius told us about Crouch Sr., what we saw of him in the Pensieve scene (the trial), and the story we heard from Barty, Jr. when he was under the influence of Veritaserum; I wouldn't say Barty Crouch Sr. was the most emotionally and mentally stable wizard in the world in GoF - even if he *does* speak over 200 languages.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, at this point, *I* still think that it was a DE (including possibly Draco, if he is one) or a former DE (including possibly Snape) that set the Mark over the Astronomy Tower. And I do not believe Sluggy was ever a DE. Just my opinion.
Laura
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 13, 2007 4:06 am (#1165 of 1629)
Laura-
Actually, I think it is only Amos who accuses Harry and Winky. He then admits he got a bit carried away thinking it might be Harry, and stutters into silence when Crouch points out that he (Amos) has just accused the two least likely beings to have cast it. So, I'm with you that Arthur is basically right. I also do not think Sluggy was a DE, ever, but, I think Arthur's statement leaves room for a wizard who was not a DE to have learned it from a spy or a former DE.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Laura W - Jan 13, 2007 5:06 am (#1166 of 1629)
Sorry to disagree with you when you are supporting me, T, but Crouch accuses Harry too. GoF, chapter The Dark Mark:
It was Mr. Crouch. He and the other Ministry wizards were closing in on them. Harry got to his feet to face them. Mr. Crouch's face was taut with rage.
'Which of you did it?' he snapped, his sharp eyes darting between them. 'Which of you conjured the Dark Mark?'
(Harry): 'We didn't do that!
(Ron): 'We didn't do anything! What did you want to attack us for?'
'Do not lie to me, sir!' shouted Mr. Crouch. ... 'You have been discovered at the scene of the crime!'
... But none of the Ministry wizards apart from Mr. Crouch seemed to think it remotely likely that Harry, Ron or Hermoine had conjured the skull ..."
That is on page 117 of the Cdn edition. Sorry, do not know where it appears in Scholastic.
And then Amos accused Winky, which Crouch shot down. It was *Arthur Weasley* who said, "Amos, think who you're talking to! Is *Harry Potter* likely to conjure the Dark Mark?" (p.120). To which Diggory replied, "Er - of course not. Sorry ... carried away ..." (p.121).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 13, 2007 5:41 am (#1167 of 1629)
Laura- Ah. Should have read further back. Crouch does then reverse himself...once he realizes what really happened.
“You have now come very close to accusing the two people in this clearing who are least likely to conjure the Mark!...Harry Potter and myself!”
As you pointed out, he is a bit unhinged....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 13, 2007 8:45 am (#1168 of 1629)
So, DE’s definitely know how and very few besides them. I think Gibbons ran back down from the Astronomy tower because the Dark Mark had already been cast.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs Brisbee - Jan 13, 2007 9:17 am (#1169 of 1629)
I confess that I am not following the logic behind this train of thought. How, when, why would someone besides Gibbon cast the Dark Mark over the Tower? Is it just a big coincidence that someone cast a Dark Mark over the Tower at the exact time and place as the Death Eaters (and what's the point, storywise); or are you suggesting that Slughorn or someone else we don't know about is a Death Eater (and again, what's the point, storywise)?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 13, 2007 1:01 pm (#1170 of 1629)
Mrs Brisbee, I don't know about anyone else but for me it's simply speculating what really happened that night. If Severus or Dobby or the Giant Squid cast the Dark Mark it was a sign for DD which could support the *pre-planned death scene* theory, which is what I'm still exploring.
Regarding "enormous/huge/big" blond DE, he is mentioned 9 times. This causes me to believe he will be mentioned in book 7 as either a Polyjuiced Order member or Rufus, or is a DE working with Severus and DD. I believe it wasn't an accident that the only time he actually managed to hit anything he a)missed Lupin and AK'd Gibbon and, b)broke the DE barrier on the Tower stairs.
On another subject, I find it interesting that JKR made a point of having McGonagall say about Severus, "I don't think he knew they were there before Filius told him, I don't think he knew they were coming." To me this means it'll turn out he did in fact know because he wasn't as in the dark as Draco thought, that maybe Severus didn't know about the vanishing cabinet but he did know there were plans to smuggle them into the school. As some theories go, it might have been Draco's original task.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 13, 2007 5:37 pm (#1171 of 1629)
Me and My Shadow explained it perfectly. Another thing, when Dumbledore said "yes and no" it could have meant yes, the Dark Mark did hurry me up here but not because you sent it. I still want to believe that Dumbledore is under Draught of Living Death even though it is a slim shot. If Jo hadn't said Dumbledore's dead there would be no way anyone could convince me that he died.
It's like this for me: if Dumbledore is properly dead, then I can't see how Snape can be innocent of his murder. I don't buy the theory that Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him to save Draco, because I don't think Dumbledore would leave Harry hanging and I don't think he would ask Snape to perform an Unforgiveable. If Dumbledore was killed because of the Vow, I think it was all Snape's doing and the "Severus, Please" was Dumbledore pleading with Snape not to betray him. I could buy the “Snape destroyed the horcrux around Dumbledore's neck theory,” if someone could answer why there was the fake R.A.B locket beside Dumbledore's body. Even then, Snape still killed Dumbledore in the process. So, in order for Snape to be innocent IMO, Dumbledore was still alive at the end of HBP.
I totally agree about Big Blond DE!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 13, 2007 6:59 pm (#1172 of 1629)
I could buy the “Snape destroyed the horcrux around Dumbledore's neck theory,” if someone could answer why there was the fake R.A.B locket beside Dumbledore's body .Even then,Snape still killed Dumbledore in the process. So, in order for Snape to be innocent IMO, Dumbledore was still alive at the end of HBP. - Madame Pomfrey
Madame, thanks for your post. Regarding what you stated in the above, I don't think the locket around DD's neck was the horcrux but I do think it was possibly around DD's neck, that DD conveyed this to Severus via Legilimency on the Tower thus letting Severus know where to aim the AK ("squarely in the chest"), and that is why the locket had burst open when Harry found it.
Basically, what this says to me is DD was dying from the injury and the cave potion. I think Severus was well aware that DD, already suffering from his hand injury, was going on another horcrux hunt on that night and would most likely return with another ailment or worse. DD might have even told Severus he wasn't expecting to make it much longer, and, given the Vow, that Severus *must* obey DD's orders no matter what, even if it meant staging an AK so the DE's would carry Severus on their shoulders back to Vold. This explains the "revulsion and hatred" on Severus's face, and to me seems like a perfectly believable scenario. After all, we know how DD regarded death. So he was prepared and willing to pass on, I just don't believe he would make Severus a murderer. A perceived murderer until Vold is *finished*, but not a man with a split soul.
PS: I agree about the "yes and no" interpretation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Jan 13, 2007 7:22 pm (#1173 of 1629)
MandM. Where is Snape more valuable in the future? As an outcast by the Wizarding World, or working for Dumbledore as a spy and in the final battle at his side? Also if Snape was really working for the Order, couldn't he have led them on a raid right to Voldemort when the time was right?
I don't see Dumbledore hanging Snape out to dry like that. I know what you mean about Dumbledore's next great adventure ideas, but not at the cost of Snape. What happens to Snape if he is caught by the Ministry? Dumbledore can't come back and say “it was my idea.” Snape is now on the run, and will be until his end. No Hogwarts, nothing but a trip to the Dementor kissing booth. That doesn't sound like Dumbledore to me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 13, 2007 7:50 pm (#1174 of 1629)
Thom, I feel this all needs to be viewed with the Vow.
- It is possible the Vow mortally bound Severus to kill DD.
- It seems not only was DD ailing from the hand injury but he was seriously weakened further by the cave potion.
- There have been solid discussions about what the Forest Conversation implies about DD telling Severus the same thing he told Harry: do as I tell you. Also, in that conversation it seems Severus is tired of his situation, yet DD essentially says *too bad*. I don't see Severus as important at Hogwarts as he is at Vold's right hand. I think Severus will be the only person Vold *foolishly,* finally, befriends and trusts, and will be crucial to Harry's success.
So a staged murder might have been a reasonable way to save Severus from death, allowing him to solidify his "loyalty" to Vold and getting the inside scoop on Vold's next move, his army, horcrux info, etc.
Technically, I think DD is very capable of saying he didn't do it. All that needs to happen is Rufus being in the Headmistress's office and hearing it from the portrait.
But you seem like a level headed guy, Thom. I'm way out there imagination-wise. Oh well.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Jan 13, 2007 8:51 pm (#1175 of 1629)
I agree with you that the Vow must come into play, and that it is important here. Just as when Sirius told Wormtail that he should die before betraying James back in PoA at the shack, so should have Snape. If Snape gets to the tower and kills Dumbledore for Draco, he can't be pleased about it. His career, his life, and the ability to stay with the Order, go down the tubes. His desire for self-preservation willed out. He should have died for Dumbledore, unless his true colors are with the Dark Lord.
I don't think that you are way out there at all. Your theory is sound. The fact that there have been discussions about the forest scene and such is also great theory. I'm merely looking at the facts as they are written and can't put that aside as yet.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1176 to 1200
Lady Arabella Sun May 22, 2011 11:17 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 13, 2007 9:01 pm (#1176 of 1629)
M&MS813 - I agree with your last post. Let me elaborate on a couple of issues.
1. Dumbledore could have saved a memory for the pensieve that explains everything that occuried and it would be addressed to either Harry or possibly the Minister. The portrait also comes to mind as being able to explain what happen.
2. Why would Dumbledore plead with Snape on the tower not to betray him? There were 4 other DE's behind Snape who would have loved to have AK'ed both Dumbledore and Snape. And even Snape isn't good enough to AK 4 DE's before one of them gets off a shot.
3. It makes sense that Dumbledore wants Snape in Voldemort’s camp full time. He can't help Harry any further at Hogwarts. As Dumbledore knows, Harry is going to have to search out the remaining Horcruxes and they ain't all going to be found at Hogwarts. Harry needs help from the inside, Snape can provide it. How he's going to transmit it and in what form, I haven't worked out yet, but it makes more sense to me than most of the other suggestions that have been put forward. That is my opinion.
Mickey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 7:52 am (#1177 of 1629)
I don't see Dumbledore hanging Snape out to dry like that. I know what you mean about Dumbledore's next great adventure ideas, but not at the cost of Snape.
Well, as I see it, once on the tower, Dumbledore had to either want Snape to die rather than him, or he had to be willing to let Snape go ahead with the AK and whatever subsequent problems might result for Snape. Hopefully, since Dumbledore must have known it might come to that, he left some sort of evidence that would exonerate Snape. But once involved in the tower events, Dumbledore basically had to either plead with Snape to die, or plead with Snape to AK him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Jan 14, 2007 10:47 am (#1178 of 1629)
Wynnleaf you are probably correct from Dumbledore's perspective, he would see it that way. But my point is about Snape. He had a choice to make as well. Murder is not sanctionable for any reason. Between Dumbledore and Snape, both very gifted wizards, there were other options available to them without endangering Draco and Harry. We have seen more then one example of DD winning against uneven odds.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 14, 2007 7:19 pm (#1179 of 1629)
Yes, there must have been other options available to DD and Snape, and I feel they must have had some other plan\plans.
Snape AKing DD on the tower seems to me part of a plan,but I think they had planned it (or DD planned it and forced Snape to agree) only as a worst case scenario,if Draco succeeded in his task of letting in the Death Eaters,and that,according to DD,was impossible.
So, although I believe that DD is really dead, and that Snape really did kill him,I do not think that in the circumstances he would have split his soul or anything like that.
As has been pointed out, DD must have planned a way to get Snape off the hook. Most probably they confided in a third person (Aberforth Dumbledore?) who will come forward and exonerate Snape when the time is right.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 14, 2007 7:21 pm (#1180 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- Knowing your past posts....are you assuming a real AK?
Thom- We actually agree. I'm hard pressed to believe DD did not have an alternative option if he knew about part three of the vow, if the vow was to kill DD, which I dispute.
mona amon- But this assumes Jo is going to tell all her readers, of all ages, it is okay for a 'good guy' to kill the ultimate good, and that that ultimate good sanctioned the killing. I'm not sure it fits the genre. We have nothing approaching this in this series. Harry stops what many would consider a righteous murder, of the traitor Pettigrew. And Harry is not nearly as pure as DD (yet, Harry is willing to try Dark Magic and Unforgivables at the moment). Is Jo going to have the character she calls the epitome of goodness condone soul tearing and murder (more like assisted suicide)?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 7:37 pm (#1181 of 1629)
Wynnleaf- Knowing your past posts....are you assuming a real AK?
T Vrana,
Actually, I don't think it was a real AK. But I write about it both ways, because I also want to be able to explain it in my own mind if it was a real AK that really killed DD. Personally, I don't think that JKR is going to have gone in that direction because I really don't think she's going to be explaining in DH why it was not just necessary, but even somehow oddly admirable for Snape to kill Dumbledore.
If DD was truly dead at the end of that night, my primary theory is that DD had a plan to fake his death that went awry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 14, 2007 7:57 pm (#1182 of 1629)
Wynnleaf,
It doesn't have to be shown as particularly admirable for Snape to have killed DD - just tragic. Something that could not be avoided under the circumstances, and for the greater good.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 8:05 pm (#1183 of 1629)
It doesn't have to be shown as particularly admirable for Snape to have killed DD-just tragic.Something that could not be avoided under the circumstances,and for the greater good.
I know. I didn't word that well -- and this probably won't be much better, but I'll try again.
What I meant is this: at the end of HBP, Snape is assumed to be the evil traitor, right? And Harry hates him. So if JKR is going to turn that around, she has to also turn around at least part of the assumptions Harry and readers (many) make about Snape's character.
I don't think she can turn around the view of Snape As Murderer, without also saying that instead of wickedly murdering DD, he was in fact selflessly obeying DD's orders. Well, that, in itself, is admirable -- to be willing to accept becoming a pariah and effecting the loss of the only person who trusts him, solely for the benefit of others. So such a turnabout would present Snape as admirable. But if the action itself was to kill the "epitome of goodness," then that takes that very admirable willingness to give up all for the sake of others, and directs it at the killing of another.
Yes, I think such a twist could work well in a completely adult- focused book. Do I think JKR will take that direction in her series? No.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jan 14, 2007 8:37 pm (#1184 of 1629)
I don't think she can turn around the view of Snape As Murderer, without also saying that instead of wickedly murdering DD, he was in fact selflessly obeying DD's orders. --- wynnleaf
This alternative doesn't fit well with Sirius's (or was it Remus?) statement to Pettigrew, "You should have died!"
The Snape/Pettigrew parallel is not a good one, or one I particularly favor, but that scene does seem to portray a different philosophy than a Snape killing of Dumbledore on Dumbledore's order. It doesn't seem to be consistent with JKR's philosophy as told to us thus far.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jan 14, 2007 9:04 pm (#1185 of 1629)
Well, there's always still the theory that Dumbledore was either already dead and being kept in motion somehow, or slowly dying. Wizards might, in some cases, be able to sense when they are close to death. It would explain why Merope went to an orphanage to have her baby instead of a hospital, or some other shelter.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 9:54 pm (#1186 of 1629)
This alternative doesn't fit well with Sirius's (or was it Remus?) statement to Pettigrew, "You should have died!"
The Snape/Pettigrew parallel is not a good one, or one I particularly favor, but that scene does seem to portray a different philosophy than a Snape killing of Dumbledore on Dumbledore's order. It doesn't seem to be consistent with JKR's philosophy as told to us thus far.
It's actually not a parallel at all. Pettigrew, in betraying the Potters, was only saving himself. He was never faced with a choice like betraying the Potters to their deaths in order save several others, versus not betraying the Potters and allowing himself to die as well as some others plus the Potters.
So it's not the same thing. In Snape's case the "you should have died," would be basically saying "you should have died rather than kill someone, even though your death would also mean the deaths of others and the person you killed would still die anyway."
If JKR has had Snape really AK and kill Dumbledore, in order to protect the lives of others then it doesn't break a principal of "give up your life for others," because in AKing DD, Snape did give up his life in that he became a highly "wanted" man and lost all he had, in order to save others.
My problem is that it is done by killing someone else. And that's what I don't think JKR would want to do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jan 15, 2007 5:07 am (#1187 of 1629)
My problem is that it is done by killing someone else. And that's what I don't think JKR would want to do. --- wynnleaf
I concur.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 15, 2007 6:28 am (#1188 of 1629)
My problem is that it is done by killing someone else.And that's what I don't think JKR would want to do."—Wynnleaf
It does seem a bit extreme. But I remember JKR being asked whether "you should have died rather than betray your friends" was an appropriate message to give kids, and she justified herself by saying that it was a war situation. Sorry,I cannot provide the actual quote.
So I think that killing someone, at that person's insistence,and for some higher reason,will not be incompatible with her philosophy,because this is a 'war situation'.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
haymoni - Jan 15, 2007 8:36 am (#1189 of 1629)
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that Jo has said time & time again that she did not write this story as a child's book. It just happens to be a story about a child.
She doesn't need to stick with a philosophy or write a moral tale or give us rules to live by. It's her story. We're just along for the ride.
If she wants to kill someone off, she doesn't need to justify it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 15, 2007 9:50 am (#1190 of 1629)
We have in canon the means to understand the events on the tower, the relationship between Dumbledore and Snape, and, to an extent, Dumbledore's death.
There are two parallel story tracks: one with Dumbledore and Harry, the other with Dumbledore and Snape. We know more about the Dumbledore and Harry track and can use it to understand the, less detailed, Dumbledore and Snape track.
We can start the Dumbledore and Harry track with Harry becoming, and admitting, that he is "Dumbledore's man, through and through." This establishes the relationship between Dumbledore and Harry. (I don't think this could be said, fully, until HBP.)
Dumbledore invites Harry on a horcrux quest, but extracts a promise from Harry that Harry will do WHATEVER Dumbledore tells him. Harry objects to this condition, but finally agrees.
The horcrux quest comes to the point where the potion must be drunk. Harry offers to drink it. Harry suggests that the potion is poison, but Dumbledore dismisses the idea, saying the potion would not immediately kill him. However, Dumbledore does not claim that the potion is not deadly. Dumbledore recalls Harry's promise and insists that Harry must continue to feed him the potion until it is all gone. Harry, objects, but reluctantly, agrees. During the process of feeding Dumbledore the horrible, likely deadly, potion, Harry even lies to Dumbledore to get him to keep drinking. The potion severely weakens Dumbledore; he could be dying from it.
The Dumbledore and Snape track is developed through all six books. We have learned that Snape was a Death Eater, he went to Dumbledore, and, for yet-to-be-stated reasons, Dumbledore trusts Snape completely. In GoF, Snape agrees to take on a very dangerous task for Dumbledore. Snape is, and has been, "Dumbledore's man, through and through."
Hagrid's mention of the overheard forest argument gives us a hint that Dumbledore has asked Snape to do something, but Snape objects.
The Dumbledore and Snape story track concludes on the tower with Snape AKing Dumbledore. Snape's expressions show that Snape didn't want to do it, but had promised Dumbledore.
In these tracks, Harry and Snape play identical roles:
Harry and Snape are both "Dumbledore's man, through and through."
Harry and Snape both promise Dumbledore they will do whatever he says.
Harry and Snape both resist the promise, but do agree to do whatever Dumbledore says.
Harry and Snape both are put in a situation of doing something that will cause harm to Dumbledore. In fact, both could have done something that killed Dumbledore.
Harry and Snape both regret their actions, but must suffer consequences.
The purpose of the Dumbledore and Harry story track was to show Harry the true nature of the Dumbledore and Snape story track. Harry has clear, first hand, evidence of how Dumbledore can force someone to perform an act they wouldn't want to do. (And, maybe, to show we readers the true nature of the events on the tower.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jan 15, 2007 10:10 am (#1191 of 1629)
Soul Search, the flaw in this line of reasoning is that JKR also uses character foils in her writing. Dudley and Draco are the best examples of character foils for Harry, Draco in particular.
With that in mind it is not inconceivable that JKR is using a Snape/Riddle relationship to parallel the Harry/Dumbledore one. We don't have sufficient evidence at this time to accurately predict which one it is. Right now I tend to think your reasoning will prevail, but I will not be surprised if it turns out the other way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 15, 2007 1:31 pm (#1192 of 1629)
Soul Search,
Good post. This is the kind of thing that leaves me undecided about what JKR is doing. In your reasoning, Snape does have to truly kill Dumbledore, because that is also what Harry did -- or at least Harry's forcing DD to drink the poison could have killed him. We can be sure that Snape killed DD, if for no other reason than that the Snape-Dumbledore story is parallel to the Harry-Dumbledore story and Harry had to almost kill DD.
It makes sense. It fits.
But on the other hand, Harry did not deliver the actual killing blow to Dumbledore (unless the poison had already killed him just before the AK), so it's possible that Snape's AK wasn't the killing blow either. And the parallel still fits.
By the way, I don't want to rehash all of the argument, but my reason for think JKR wouldn't have a loyal Snape actually kill Dumbledore isn't because it's a "children's book." But even if it were, JKR may say she wrote the kind of books she likes, not just to write a children's book, but JKR likes children's books. And it seems clear that she does include some things for the sake of her younger audience and does consider them as she writes and as she interfaces with her public.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
journeymom - Jan 15, 2007 1:47 pm (#1193 of 1629)
Soul Search and Tom, interesting. Snape is a double agent. As the folks in the Alchemy thread pointed out, Snape was born in January, named after Janus, the two-faced god.
There's not just a Snape/Riddle and Harry/Dumbledore parallel. We'll probably learn about the Riddle --> Snape <-- Dumbledore dynamic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 15, 2007 2:46 pm (#1194 of 1629)
TomProffitt,
I THINK I understand what is meant by "character foils" from the context, but could you elaborate a bit? I am interested.
One problem I have with a Voldemort/Snape parallel is the lack of any scenes with Voldemort and Snape. We have reference to a couple, but none are actually provided. If a Voldemort/Snape relationship was important, somehow, I think we should have seen something in canon.
wynnleaf,
... This is the kind of thing that leaves me undecided about what JKR is doing.
It is curious that the "big evil" has so few storyline pages. I still think the series is about Harry/Snape, not Harry/Voldemort. Voldemort is just another character. Maybe this helps with "what JKR is doing."
... Harry did not deliver the actual killing blow to Dumbledore...
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly, the potion weakened Dumbledore to the point where he was vunerable. The action of the AK is also curious. Previously, an AK that strikes a living being just kills, no side effects. An AK that hits an inanimate object causes destruction, etc. Snape's AK tossed Dumbledore over the tower wall. If Dumbledore was dead when the AK struck him, then the potion is probably what killed him.
I agree that "childrens' book" doesn't restrict the plot line in any way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jan 15, 2007 3:35 pm (#1195 of 1629)
Soul Search, I'll explain a "character foil" with the Draco/Harry one, because that is the most clearcut.
When an author uses a character foil, what they are doing is creating a character with opposite qualities to better define the protagonists by contrasting them.
Harry grew up with out his parents. Draco had his.
Harry grew up poor with out any material comforts. Draco had the best of everything.
Harry values people. Draco values power.
Harry has friends. Draco has lackeys.
And so on, just about any quality you pick for Harry, Draco has an opposite quality. The same is true for plot development. Harry trusts his leader, while Draco is a tool of Riddle. Harry is betrayed by Snape, while Draco is rescued by Snape (or so it at first appears).
Where this leads us in considering Harry's relationship with Dumbledore is to question whether JKR is showing us another character foil in the Snape/Riddle relationship, or in the Snape/Dumbledore relationship.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jan 15, 2007 9:13 pm (#1196 of 1629)
I put this up on the Snape thread, and I hope it will be okay if I put it here, too.
We've often brought up the look Snape had on his face when he killed Dumbledore. A friend on another board was wondering if that was what he called "performance art". I'll try to explain what we were talking about there as concisely as I can and see how it flies here.
In his 6th year, while Harry has been jealous, annoyed, embarassed, horrified and frightened by turn, but it was a year Harry spent trying to be NORMAL, and he often succeeded. Instead of just being scared off from the DoM scene, Voldemort maybe just wasn't interested in Harry's normal, teenaged life. Harry said he was surprised his scar was no longer hurting. DD said he was not surprised.
Then we have the night Harry goes to the cave. Harry had gotten a nasty shock from Sybill. Then he went into a frenzy quite like the ones that he had had the previous year, when Voldemort was messing with his mind. Voldemort is the one who has control of the connection. He shuts it on and off, never Harry, who refused to cooperate with Snape and learn how to. How do we know for sure that Voldemort has not begun to wonder what was going on and deciding to check it out?
When DD brought up the subject of horcruxes in his office "Rage and resentment fought shock and excitement: For several moments Harry could not speak." Then while DD talks about going after the horcruxes, Harry's anger and desire to do something risky "had increased tenfold". Don't we know by now to be suspicious when Harry's rages come up unexpectedly, with no just cause?
DD even says, when he moves from the window and looks more closely at Harry, "What has happened to you?" If Tom had opened the connection, he might have started listening in and kept on doing so. It's right then that DD, for the first time my friend and I can remember, does not remind Hary to call Snape "Professor". Did Dumbledore see Voldemort in Harry's eyes? Is that why he carefully repeats the story of Snape's remorse that Voldemort sent Snape to Hogwarts with, the story DD is careful to call a "likely story"? It would make sense then, WHY DD wouldn't tell Harry at that point why he trusts Snape! And it would make a very good reason why DD sent Harry off to get his cloak, so he could warn Snape that Voldemort was seeing what Harry was seeing!
My friend thought there was something very "stagy" about that whole business in the cave, and the tower, and Snape yelling about being the HBP. It would make more sense to us if Voldemort had witnessed it, and the murder of DD as well. Or Voldemort could certainly have left Harry's mind before that, without Harry knowing it, but Snape kept putting on the show, not knowing it either.
The main argument against this is the fact that Harry's scar didn't hurt during that evening, but if Voldemort realized when he tried to possess Harry in the DoM that the scar worked like a warning bell, he might have figured out a way to get past it.
Any comments?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Jan 15, 2007 9:19 pm (#1197 of 1629)
Die, I'll ask here as well, Are you thinking that Voldemort, thru Harry, witnessed the death? That could be interesting.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jan 15, 2007 9:26 pm (#1198 of 1629)
Interesting if he heard the discussion in Dumbledore's office, more interesting if he saw what happened in the cave, and even MORE interesting if he saw the death!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thom Matheson - Jan 15, 2007 9:30 pm (#1199 of 1629)
I followed you from the Snape thread, but because it could change everyone’s perspective on Snape's actions, I'm thinking it would be more fun over there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 15, 2007 9:42 pm (#1200 of 1629)
Die Z., interesting although I don't think Vold wants Harry anywhere near his mind. I believe DD when he says Vold is using Occlumency against Harry. But it's possible Vold has been trying to develop an awareness of if and when he could be safe to peer into Harry's mind.
I don't think Severus is as good of an actor as he's told Bella and Draco. I don't feel he tries to be, and that's a main reason why I trust him. Yes he is a magnificent Occlumens, he might have a perpetually *unreadable* expression, but I don't see him as switching from Severus the DE to Severus the reformed DE and back again. He's just Severus. Granted, we've never seen him with Vold. But the closest I've ever seen him to *kissing up* is in Spinner's End chapter with Narcissa, and I actually think that was genuine excitement to see her.
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Posts 1201 to 1225
Lady Arabella Sun May 22, 2011 11:19 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 6:14 am (#1201 of 1629)
Interesting theory, but I can't believe LV would not have had a huge reaction to discovering DD knew about his horcruxes, and Harry would have felt it. If LV opened the connection to spy, the sudden rage and fear he would have felt could not, IMO, be controlled.
I didn't find Harry's rage out of place given what he just learned.
Also, if DD did see LV in Harry's eyes, I think he would have desisted all talk of horcruxes and would not have led Harry to the cave, and weakened himself. Wouldn't LV send a contingent of DEs to stop DD and Harry?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MickeyCee3948 - Jan 16, 2007 7:28 am (#1202 of 1629)
T Vrana-I also think that Harry would have felt Voldemort make the connection. Harry may not have been able to break the connection but he would have known that Voldemort was there and so would have Dumbledore. If Voldemort had been listening in he would have been furious about them finding out about the horcruxes and Harry would have definitely felt that level of emotion from the dark lord. He always has.
I don't believe that Dumbledore told Harry where they were going before they reached the cave. He just said they were going after one of the horcruxes. If Voldemort had been listening he could have sent DE's after Harry and Dumbledore but where do you send them? Which one would he send his DE's to protect.
Mickey
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 7:42 am (#1203 of 1629)
He would have seen where they were. DD and Harry spent enough time in the cave to get caught.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jan 16, 2007 8:54 am (#1204 of 1629)
Voldemort could have had a major reaction if that was the first he knew of the ring being destroyed. We know he went ballistic when he found out about the diary. Lucius was lucky to be out of reach.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soul Search - Jan 16, 2007 9:35 am (#1205 of 1629)
TomProffitt, thanks for your #1195 post explaining "character foils." That is a new term for me.
Your choice of the Draco/Harry character foil was good. It seems the clearest one in the series. I particularly liked your statement "Harry has friends. Draco has lackeys." Well stated.
Your description got me thinking of other possible character foils. Dumbledore/Voldemort, White/Black is obvious. I can also see Hermione/Luna and Twins/Percy. Can't come up with one for Ron, however. In fact, the more I tried it seemed Ron had no distinctive "character."
Snape, not suprisingly, seemed to be his own character foil. He is mean and nasty, yet in the Order and dedicated to Dumbledore. He torments Harry, but also saves him. I could go on.
I, now, recognize the "character foil" literary technique and that JKR has used it. Thanks again.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Die Zimtzicke - Jan 16, 2007 9:48 am (#1206 of 1629)
Another thing that Draco probably gets from his father! I can see Lucius having lackeys, but not friends, as well. That might be where Draco learned to see that as a normal thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomProffitt - Jan 16, 2007 10:02 am (#1207 of 1629)
Soul Search, if Ron has a foil it would be Victor Krum. I was thinking about that the other day as writing the post.
And all of this leads to the question is Snape's relationship with Dumbledore a foil for Harry's? For example, Harry trusted Dumbledore enough to force Albus to drink the potion in the cave, but did Severus trust Dumbledore as much as Dumbledore did him? Did Severus cast the AK on the Tower because he couldn't bring himself to trust Dumbledore's plan as Harry could in the cave? I don't believe this is the case, but it would be consistent with JKR's writing style.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
poohnpiglettt - Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm (#1208 of 1629)
I hope this doesn't go too off track, but this sort of goes along with Snape and what happened in the tower, or specifically, right before the tower. I posted something similar right after i finished reading HBP but after time, rereading, and seeing other ideas floating around, I have some new things to add so here goes:
1. I have not seen this mentioned at all but I may have missed it--havent had time to really read all of the posts. Something in The Phoenix Lament when everyone is describing what happened that night to Harry, especially involving Snape. Did anyone else notice that Snape seemed to have "disappeared" for a moment in all of the fuss right before he ran upstairs to DD? Tonks says "...Snape was there...and then he wasn't"; Ginny saw him running toward them but "...that huge death eater's jinx" made her lose track of things. Next thing Lupin saw him "run straight through the cursed barrier." Could he possible have disapparated for a moment to go and come back to get something? I know, can't on Hogwart's grounds but that had been lifted for an hour at a time before under Dumbledore's orders for apparition practice. Why not again, again under Dumbledore's orders? Might also explain why Snape had to knock out Fliwick if he was the one who had taken off the enchantment, most likely since he teaches charms, and he may have just known he had to do it on Dumbledore's orders but not know why and Snape needed a little more time to act. The description of him "appearing" and all of a sudden "being there" reminds me of Hermione using the time turner in POA---more about that in #3.
2. Who is the big, blond death eater, the one sending "jinxes all over the place, ...barely missing" everybody? The one that blocks Snape from view. Almost like a body guard for Snape but never hitting anyone--Whoever it is, the spells kept missing, even though Ginny thinks it's the Felix potion that did it. If you reread, though it seems like he's doing something major, he never actually hits anything or anybody EXCEPT for his hex that "caused half the ceiling to fall in, and ALSO broke the curse blocking the stairs." And now the wildest part of my theory.
3. If indeed a time turner was used, I have a pretty wild theory. What if the big, blond death eater were none other than Harry disguised? Which means at some point he will have to trust and believe that what Snape did was for the best. It would make more sense when Snape yells to the big blond death eater "It's over, time to go" even though Harry believes Snape just yells "it's over" meaning Snape did what he meant to do, kill DD. The difference in those two are key, because if Harry is the blond death eater, and was using the potion that turns you into someone else (forgot what it's called) they would have to get off the grounds before it wore off.
That's all for now..let me know what you think. : )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 16, 2007 5:11 pm (#1209 of 1629)
pooh, Some of your ideas have been discussed. If I may suggest you read back on this thread, you might like what you see and refine or embellish your theory...
To Die Z.'s theory, I don't feel it is necessary for Vold to be possessing Harry for him to become enraged. I think the scene in Seer Overheard is valid regarding Harry's anger and I feel one of Harry's strengths is that he moves through his rage rather than repressing it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 17, 2007 3:53 am (#1210 of 1629)
T Vrana,
Thanks for replying to my post in your post #1180.I can't understand how, but I missed reading it till today.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
rambkowalczyk - Jan 17, 2007 4:12 pm (#1211 of 1629)
Poohnpiglett—re-post 1208 very wild theory. It seems convoluted and asks more questions than it answers. Something to think about.
Regarding Voldemort looking through Harry's eyes. I suppose it's possible that if Harry can look through Voldemort's thoughts without Voldemort knowing it might be possible that Voldemort can do the same. But Harry's anger at Snape when talking to Dumbledore seemed perfectly reasonable.
Regarding what you stated in the above, I don't think the locket around DD's neck was the horcrux but I do think it was possibly around DD's neck, that DD conveyed this to Severus via Legilimency on the Tower thus letting Severus know where to aim the AK ("squarely in the chest"), and that is why the locket had burst open when Harry found it. Me and MY Shadow 818
Suppose an AK curse can destroy the soul in a locket or in any horcrux. If Dumbledore wore the locket so it hung down on his chest, the Severus would do the AK curse and destroy the horcrux but not kill Dumbledore. Dumbledore would then fake his death for the usual reasons--save Draco, postpone Severus's third part of the vow, etc.
But unbeknownst to Dumbledore and Snape that locket isn't a horcrux, so when Snape AKed Dumbledore, he killed him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 17, 2007 4:45 pm (#1212 of 1629)
How did he know before he scooped it from the basin, that it would be a locket? So how could they plan?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 17, 2007 5:17 pm (#1213 of 1629)
Regarding locket "shield", consider, if you will, the following statement from The Lightning Struck Tower chapter:
“Dumbledore had already crossed the crenellated ramparts and was dismounting; Harry landed next to him seconds later and looked around.”
This is directly before Harry looks at the Dark Mark, then back at DD as DD is "clutching at his chest".
I feel it possible that DD sent Severus a Patronus message immediately upon landing on the Tower. Why else would JKR go through the trouble of saying DD landed "seconds before" Harry. In JKR-language, I feel this is a *space* for DD to do something we'll find out about later. Then, when Severus approached DD on the Tower, further Legilimency was used to confirm before Severus acted. This explains, among other things, the uniqueness of DD being thrown into the air by an AK.
I still do not feel the locket was the horcrux, but that DD creatively thought on his feet, as he does Oh so well.
Again, I'm aware it is *speculation* and not *canon*, but... any thoughts?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 17, 2007 5:20 pm (#1214 of 1629)
m & M shadow- Patronuses can be seen, but Hermione does not mention seeing one enter Snape's office, and Snape doesn't go to the tower 'til Filius arrives.
I do agree the space is interesting, as is clutching his chest (Weasly shield, anyone?).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 17, 2007 7:53 pm (#1215 of 1629)
Patronuses can be seen, but Hermione does not mention seeing one enter Snape's office, and Snape doesn't go to the tower 'til Filius arrives. - T Vrana
I'm not sure but I think in OoP, DD's Patronus randomly appeared at the table where Sirius, Harry and others were sitting awaiting word about Arthur's condition. There was no *canon* that the messenger had to fly into or out of any particular door/window/opening, rather it seems to *apparate/disapparate* for lack of a better term. What do you think?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 17, 2007 8:04 pm (#1216 of 1629)
I don't recall that. I was thinking of Tonks' patronus, intercepted by Snape.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 17, 2007 8:27 pm (#1217 of 1629)
Actually, I don't mean to assume Fawkes is a Patronus (Fawkes delivered the message in OoP). Yet this is an Order message to the Order Headquarters, and Patronus is explicitly mentioned as what DD developed as the Order's method of messengering. Perhaps we can assume that Fawkes is interchangeable with DD's Patronus? I might be wrong here...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
mona amon - Jan 18, 2007 2:42 am (#1218 of 1629)
me and my shadow, Are you saying that Fawkes and DD's patronus are the same thing (no,they aren’t )or that they can be used interchangebly to send messages (yes they can)?
Anyway,I think you are right in the essentials-DD could have sent a message to Snape without Hermione and Luna noticing. I'm sure he had more than one way of communicating with the Order.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 18, 2007 2:08 pm (#1219 of 1629)
Well, there are windows after all and a patronus doesn't need to walk in the door. So I suppose DD could have sent a message to Snape.
Overall, I'm still very inclined to the theory that DD meant to fake his death and somehow it failed. Because there are too many signs there (in my opinion), that a lot of the events were planned for, and that the AK was a bit odd, etc.
Was DD clutching at his chest important? I do think it was a clue for something. Could be a shield cloak. Could be the locket around his neck. Could be he was dying of Cave potions, although he had seemed mostly sleepy before - I'm not sure why he'd clutch his chest over the Cave potions. I don't think it was some random action that JKR just threw in.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madame Pomfrey - Jan 18, 2007 2:22 pm (#1220 of 1629)
I would really love for Dumbledore to have had a vial of Draught of Living Death around his neck,
to be used after the fall. I haven't given up on this one yet!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 18, 2007 2:25 pm (#1221 of 1629)
Me either! (except I think it was Draught in the lake)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wynnleaf - Jan 18, 2007 2:35 pm (#1222 of 1629)
I haven't given it up either. What JKR means by Dumbledore being dead could be any number of things. Yep, he's "dead" now -- in 2007. But after the tower? I'm not sure.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
me and my shadow 813 - Jan 18, 2007 6:44 pm (#1223 of 1629)
Well, there are windows after all and a patronus doesn't need to walk in the door. – wynnleaf
I hesitated to say the same thing, as I wonder if there are windows in the dungeon where Severus was located all night. But overall, I feel it is possible. In other words, if JKR explained it this way in book 7 I wouldn't have to "suspend disbelief".
[i]Are you saying that Fawkes and DD's patronus are the same thing (no,they aren’t) or that they can be used interchangebly to send messages (yes they can)? - mona amon
No and yes, as you said. I forgot Sirius exclaiming "Fawkes!" when the message from Molly was delivered to the table. So it seems DD uses both for messaging.
Edit: it isn't absolutely clear that DD uses Fawkes for messaging, actually... just that he lent Fawkes for Molly to use in that manner...
As far as Draught of Living Death... *sigh*... It looked so promising. I mean DD was described as though "sleeping" three times after the Tower. Oh well...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mediwitch - Jan 18, 2007 8:06 pm (#1224 of 1629)
Dumbledore did use Fawkes for messaging - sort of - when he asked Fawkes to provide a warning should Umbridge discover that Harry and the Weasleys were out of bed the night Harry "saw" Arthur's snake attack.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Vrana - Jan 18, 2007 8:10 pm (#1225 of 1629)
If DD did send a Patronus, why did Snape wait for Flitwick?
Lady Arabella- Prefect
- Posts : 2568
Join date : 2011-02-22
Location : Silicon Valley, CA
Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Similar topics» Voldemort and Death
» Death Eaters
» A Muggleborn Death Eater
» Consequences of the Death of Albus Dumbledore
» Who Would You Prefer as Your Partner in a Fight Against Death Eaters? (3/31/08-4/13/08)
» Death Eaters
» A Muggleborn Death Eater
» Consequences of the Death of Albus Dumbledore
» Who Would You Prefer as Your Partner in a Fight Against Death Eaters? (3/31/08-4/13/08)
Page 2 of 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum