Did Dumbledore know about the basilisk? (WAS: What's annoying about Harry)

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51475

Melody wrote:
Both Grey and I can be very aggressive posters 
to argue with. Frankly, so can you. We did not mean 
to insult you or hurt your feelings though.

I reply:
Yeah, I know I have a tendency to be an 
aggressive debater. ;-) Still, my feeling weren't 
hurt so much as I didn't see the need for the "well, 
you better get used to..." I know I just got here. 
But length of time on the list doesn't really reflect 
knowledge of canon, y'know? And I don't mind 
aggressive debates as long as there's support 
for them in canon. Actually, threads with passages 
quoted left and right are my *favorite* threads. My 
least favorite are the ones where theories are treated 
as canon. And I don't mind theories as long as 
they're stated, in the post, as theories, ie 
M.A.G.I.C.D.I.S.H.W.A.S.H.E.R., which is incredibly, 
tediously interesting, but not canon proof of anything,
really. ;-)


I wrote:
Wouldn't that be patently obvious? *IF* Harry had 
been forthcoming about what he knew, I think that 
the fact that he's a Parselmouth would have been 
very useful in locating the Basilisk, in tracking
its movements, and in possibly preventing some of 
the attacks. I can back this up by saying that Harry 
is able to find the victims by following the voice 
of the basilisk. <snip>

Melody wrote:
Tom, frankly, it might be "patently" obvious. Frankly, that is what I
said before when I said it should be obvious to the staff already that
the creature in question is a basilisk, but you did not accept my
argument then. Why should we accept it when you tell us that if you
won't accept ours?

I reply:
Because I'm writing about something that didn't happen. It's not in 
canon, and I'm writing from the "I," as in, 'assuming Harry had been 
more forthcoming, this could have happened...' Grey and yourself were 
writing about whether or not Dumbledore knew about the Basilisk. And 
until the last few posts, you guys were presenting your theory as 
fact. So, that's why I didn't accept it - I wanted canon, or else 
admission that it was only an interpretation of canon. ;-)


Melody wrote:
But if Harry had told Dumbledore what really would of changed. If
they had found the basilisk. Then they still would not of found the
person "controlling" the basilisk.

I reply:
Why? Harry is still a Parseltongue. He could maybe have asked it who 
was controlling it. I mean, I completely agree that Harry being 
honest is not in the best interests of the story line. But that 
wasn't the point of my original post, which was about some of Harry's 
attributes that I find irritating. Most of these attributes are 
responsible for creating tension in the plot, I agree, and if Harry 
was a perfect little angel, we wouldn't have much of a series to get 
all worked up over. But is it fair to argue that Harry is justified 
in not being forthcoming because then we wouldn't have a story? I 
don't think so. JKR is justified in not making Harry forthcoming 
because we wouldn't have much of a story. But Harry's not justified. 
Minor distinction, but it's there.


Melody wrote:
Killing the basilisk is important, but the really important part of
that scene is the complete erasing of the diary. *That* would not of
happened if Harry had not stayed quiet that day. Now that is a
speculation on my part, but I do believe it is firm.

I reply:
Again, why? If Harry had been more forthcoming, and if they had 
stopped the Basilisk, Riddle wouldn't have had a monster to kill with 
anymore. So, I guess we could theorize that he'd use her to do 
something equally or <shudder> even more vile. But there's no canon 
to indicate what that might be, since we're not really given any 
indication of Riddle (kid Riddle, not Voldemort) in the sense of 
Riddle's power. Except that Dumbledore says he was probably the most 
gifted student ever to attend Hogwarts. So, we can't guess as to 
whether or not the diary would have been erased. It might have. It 
might not have. There are equally compelling cases in either 
direction.


Melody replied (to an entirely snipped bit of mine):
We wrote as fact upon inferences in canon. Inferences about what
isn't said by Dumbledore *to* Harry. 

I reply:
That's what the bee in my bonnet was. They were "inferences from 
canon," not "from canon." It's fine to infer, IMHO, as long as it's 
clear that it's an inference, and not canon. Which, again, is why I 
was so stubborn about asking for canon.


Melody wrote:
Frankly, much of MD is inferred from canon. 

I reply:
Yep, but just because MD is a pretty good theory doesn't mean it can 
be stated as fact. MD sheds some light on perhaps the greater 
undertaking here - but it's not in canon, and it can't be used as 
canon. Although I haven't finished everything related to Pip's 
original post (which is fantastic,) I've got issues with parts of MD. 
As long as MD is referred to as a theory, it's okay. Once MD is 
treated like a fact and used as a reference point, it's not.


Melody wrote:
Many times, people do not post directly the quotes but more assume 
the other listees are just following their line of logic. 

I reply:
I am so guilty of this too. See the recent "Green Eyes" thread for a 
perfect example. But that's why we have to be more diligent. My 
assumptions and questions about the scene with the Mirror of Erised 
were based on faulty logic and a sloppy reading of the phrase "The 
Potters waved at him."


Now, the stuff I really care about!

I asked for canon proof:
> Where do we find out that Fawkes is immune to the Basilisk's stare?

Melody replied:
I think is can be safety inferred because the phoenix was flying
freely and strategically around the basilisk and striking dead on its
eyes (CoS, Ch 16). It is obvious the bird is not striking blindly or
flying without knowledge of where the basilisk is trying to strike.
 
I reply:
>From the scene in the Chamber (it will be interdispersed with my 
comments regarding how I read the passage... all of the following 
quotes are from CoS 318-319):

"There was a loud, explosive spitting sound right above him, and then 
something heavy hit Harry so hard that he was smashed into the wall. 
Waiting for fangs to sink through his body he heard more mad missing, 
something thrashing wildly off the pillars -"

-I read Fawkes has already distracted the basilisk. It's thrashing 
wildly, and it wasn't thrashing before. Why? Fawkes has begun to 
attack.

"He couldn't help it - he opened his eyes wide enough to squint at 
what was going on.

"The enormous serpent, bright poisonous green, thick as an oak trunk, 
had raised itself high in the air and its great blunt head was 
weaving drunkenly between the pillars."

-It's weaving drunkenly. Why "drunkenly," which would imply that its, 
er, senses are dulled. Has Fawkes already taken out its eyes?

"As Harry trembled, ready to close his eyes if it turned, he saw what 
had distracted the snake."

-The basilisk can work from its sense of smell. ("...YOU CAN STILL 
SMELL HIM! KILL HIM!", CoS 319) So its distraction does not have 
anything, necessarily, to do with "seeing" Fawkes. I'd be distracted 
if one of my eyes was poked out, for sure. Especially distracted if I 
didn't know how it was poked out.

"Fawkes was soaring around its head, and the basilisk was snapping 
furiously at him with fangs long and thin as sabers -"

-Again, the basilisk can be operating from its sense of smell. 

"Fawkes dived. His long golden beak sank out of sight and a sudden 
shower of dark blood spattered the floor. The snake's tail thrashed, 
narrowly missing Harry, and before Harry could shut his eyes, it 
turned - Harry looked straight into its face and saw that its eyes, 
both its great, bulbous yellow eyes, had been punctured by the 
phoenix."

-BOTH of its eyes have been punctured. But we've only *seen* Fawkes 
dive once (and we don't know for sure that he took out an eye there, 
since later we know that Fawkes continues to jab "here and there at 
its scaly nose." Which means that he could have taken out the 
basilisk's eyes early on. Which means that the first dive, and the 
subsequent dives *could* all be at the creature's nose.

Okay. Assuming that the basilisk obeys orders (which it does later 
when Riddle tells it to stop paying attention to Fawkes,) we know 
that Riddle told the basilisk to kill Harry, which means that it's 
attention would be on Harry. Not on Fawkes.

"... the basilisk has a murderous stare, and all who are *fixed* with 
the beam of its eye shall suffer instant death." (CoS 290)

If it's attention is on Harry, then Fawkes can't be *fixed* in its 
stare: Harry would be fixed in its stare. Which means that Fawkes can 
stab at its "great, bulbous yellow eyes" without being fixed in its 
stare. Which means that Fawkes would not be petrified.

I like the theory that Fawkes is immune to the stare, but I never 
gathered that from the text, and a close reading can easily point the 
other way.


I asked:
> How do you know that Dumbledore sent Fawkes? How do you know that
> Dumbledore gave Fawkes the hat? How do you know that Dumbledore put
> the sword in the hat?

Melody replied:
I guess we say that because Dumbledore clearly told Harry what to do
when and if he reaches the chamber. He told Harry, "You will also
find that help is given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."
(CoS, Ch 14)

I reply:
I can see how you'd infer that Dumbledore set up the package that 
Fawkes brought to Harry. I inferred that as well when I read it. But 
as Amanda so wonderfully pointed out, these are only inferences. For 
all we know, the sword was concealed in the hat entirely and never 
emerged until Harry asked for it. After all, by GoF the sword is 
hanging on the wall in Dumbledore's office, but when Harry first 
enters the office in CoS, it's not hanging there, at least, it's not 
explicitly stated that it is. 

And how do we know that Dumbledore isn't just giving Harry some sort 
of general maxim here? And we don't yet know when Dumbledore returned 
from his absence, so we definitely can't be sure that he "sent" 
Fawkes to Harry. But somehow Fawkes knew to go when loyalty to 
Dumbledore was invoked. How? Can't be sure. How, for that matter, did 
Fawkes even *know* that Harry had invoked Dumbledore? We don't know.

Thanks for a most interesting debate, honestly. I'd be really  
interested to see how Grey Wolf and yourself read that bit inside the 
Chamber.

-Tom