Objections to Magic Dishwasher - Shrieking Shack

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51736

Pip wrote in 39662:
"Snape and Dumbledore already know Peter 
Pettigrew is Scabbers the Rat."

Then I replied:
"An extraordinary achievement – not least, 
keeping it quiet from me. And then I 
remembered the *most unusual form* your 
Patronus took. . ." (PoA, US softcover, 
Owl Post Again, 428 – emphasis is my own) 

This is at the end of the book, in one of 
the `Dumbledore tells all - confessional' 
scenes (they occur in every book.) Two things 
about this quote: he says quite clearly that 
he didn't know. 
END QUOTE.

Pip replied:
<snip everything that concludes with this:>
All he has to do is (say) not mention that James
Potter had also told him, several years previously.

I reply:
All of this assumes MD before a reading of the text. It
starts with MD and works backwards to the actual text. I 
don't see why the logic 'doesn't have to be' a logical
sequence. It is. I don't see how it proves anything that
Dumbledore offered to be the secret keeper - what would
matter is if they asked him to be. These aren't based on 
anything. They're all entirely off-canon.


I wrote previously:
He also says that Harry's Patronus was "unusual." 
If he'd known about Prongs, he wouldn't have thought
it was unusual at all. 

Pip replied:
No? How much do you know about Patroni? Is it common
for one to take the shape of a parent's animagus 
form? Or is that remarkable, *unusual*?

I reply:
I don't see where you're going with this. Dumbledore
said he thought the patronus was 'unusual.' So, whatever
the usual form is, Harry's doesn't have it.

But:

"Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself
most plainly when you have need of him."
(PoA, US softcover, Owl Post Again, 428)

So (re: above) it doesn't seem so odd now that 
Dumbledore DOES know what Harry's dad was capable of.

In other words, the Patronus is unusual UNTIL it's 
understood that James = Prongs.

So, again, why would Dumbledore have thought it was 
unusual before the Shrieking Shack, and doesn't seem 
to after the Shrieking Shack? 

"You know, Harry, in a way, you did see your father
last night... You found him inside yourself."
(PoA, US softcover, Owl Post Again, 428)

Because now, thanks to his talk with Sirius, he knows
all about how they became Animagi. And therefore he 
knows that James = Prongs. And therefore it makes sense.


Pip wrote:
<snip the canon>
Dumbledore has told the exact, literal truth.
And lied through his teeth.

I reply:
I think it's safe to say that that misdirecting
others' attention and 'lying' are not the same thing. 
Nor is the omission of part of a statement 'lying.'


I wrote:
<snip Parting of the Ways scene from GoF> 
1) Animagi are rare. If Snape knew that Sirius was
an animagus (as 39662 presumes he did), he would 
not have been surprised to learn that the black dog 
was Sirius.

Pip replied:
First point. He was not surprised. The description
reads 'mingled fury and horror'. It does *not* read 
'mingled fury and surprise'. 'Horror' is not an 
unlikely reaction when you have just found out the 
person you most dislike has heard your darkest secret.

Snape, in fact gives no sign of surprise whatsoever.
He doesn't yell, he doesn't jump backwards. 
END QUOTE.


I reply:
Isn't this a bit of double speak, here?

How can you be simultaneously horrified to have just
found out that the person you most dislike has heard
your darkest secret, and yet not be surprised? One does
not go from 'normal' to expressing 'mingled fury and 
horror' without some element of surprise in there.
 
Snape wasn't horrified before. He is now that Sirius is around. If 
you're demanding the actual word "surprise" be there, well, then 
you're right, it's not there. 

But I don't see how you can be requiring the word 'surprise'
in there, not when *so* many of the premises and explanations 
for MD infer so much without the wording, depend more on
what the characters are "not" saying than on what they are.

One way or the other, Snape doesn't know that Sirius'
form is that of a large black dog, and that's because
Dumbledore didn't tell his him. And that begs a question:

How would Snape know pre-Shrieking Shack, that Pettigrew 
was a rat, but NOT know that Sirius was a dog? Because
Dumbledore left that part out?


Pip wrote:
Second point: there is *no* 'presumption' that Snape
knew Sirius was an animagi. He did know. Because he 
was at the very latest told in the Shrieking Shack itself. 

The door opens by itself (signifying Snape's entrance)
in PoA Ch. 18, p.258 UK hardback. Later on in that 
Chapter, Lupin talks about the other three Marauders 
turning into animagi. He mentions that Sirius was a 
large animal. By the transformation scene in GoF, Snape 
absolutely, canonically *knew* Sirius Black was an
animagi.
END QUOTE.

I reply:
Okay. To the contrary: Snape walking in at the opening 
of the door is one big, massive assumption. Granted, it's 
convenient, it's what everyone might like to believe. 
Sure, I think that myself. But I only think it. There's no 
proof.

And your interpretation of canon only indicates that 
Snape "might know," not that he does. And of course, 
the purpose of your interpretation of canon is to 
prove, for the time being at least, that your 
theory is representative of the events in canon.

After all, the more you look for something, the 
more you find it. And if you're really looking for
something, you'll find it everywhere.


Pip wrote:
Is Snape even really *concentrating* on the dog? Given
that he's trying so hard to convince Fudge that he bares 
his arm and Tells All?

I reply:
The dog growled at Fudge. If Snape wasn't
concentrating on it before, he would at least have
been aware of its presence by that point.

All of this is just a diversion, anyways. There is still 
no proof that Dumbledore and Snape knew Pettigrew was an
animagus. We just talked right around Pettigrew and
dealt with Sirius instead... my fault entirely... <grin>
I shouldn't have used Sirius as my example. 

And there's still no indication that Dumbledore OR Snape 
knew that Sirius was an animagus.

A reminder:

Pip wrote in 39662:
How do they know? Speculation City here :-).

I reply:
Do you not hold to that anymore?


Pip wrote in 39662:
As discussed above, Dumbledore very unusually
*doesn't* let Harry tell his side of the story. 
His explanation to Harry is one of his 
favourite 'telling only part of the truth'
explanations:
<snip points>

I replied:
This is not unusual. I believe that you're staring the
obvious in the face here... these reasons are, if 
anything, extremely real and believable. 
<snip canon quotes>

Pip replied to my reply:
Dumbledore doesn't even try to save Sirius. He lets
Snape tell Fudge his version of events. In fact, 
he leaves Snape alone with Fudge. However, he doesn't 
let the kids tell their version.

He makes sure *he's* heard Sirius's version. He
doesn't even *suggest* to Fudge that he might 
like to hear what Sirius has to say.

His first words on entering the Hospital Wing?

"My apologies, Poppy, but I need a word with Mr Potter
and Miss Grainger..." [Ch. 21, p.286]

He hasn't the *slightest* intention of letting them
explain things to Fudge. Or of letting Fudge talk to 
Black. Or of even *suggesting* that Fudge talks to Black. 
END QUOTE.


I reply to Pip's reply to my reply:
You just wrote right around my point, and I don't see
why. He's talked to Sirius. That took time. Now he 
believes that Sirius is innocent. And that Sirius 
should be saved. And he's got practically zilch 
time to get events rolling.

So, why should Dumbledore waste his time trying to
convince Fudge of anything? Dumbledore had zero
success trying to convince Fudge that Hagrid was
innocent in CoS. Why should he waste time trying to
convince Fudge when it could mean that Sirius won't
be rescued? 

There's no good reason for him to do so. But there are
plenty of good reasons for him to get those two kids, one
of whom has a Time-Turner, alone for a minute. One is to
save Sirius, because the evidence is all legitimately 
against him. The other is to save Buckbeak.


Pip wrote:
Snape reaches the Castle 45 minutes before Dumbledore
locks the hospital wing. [p. 301, ch.21] Far from 
calling the Dementors immediately (as he threatened), 
Snape's priorities seem to be getting the kids into 
hospital and telling Dumbledore.


I reply:
Okay. First, I'm going to nitpick: Snape 'moved them away 
toward the castle' with 45 minutes to go. So he's on the way,
not there yet.

Second, there's also no mention in canon of going to
Dumbledore first. You're filling in blanks here. We do know 
that with roughly 5 minutes to go (3 when they are 
dealing with Peeves) they encounter Snape and Fudge. 
So, that means 40 minutes to get the bodies to
the castle, somehow get Sirius taken care of, somehow
get the bodies to the hospital wing, and then find/meet
Fudge and relay the story to him. See below for my 
interpretation of the status of the conversation.

No matter what the case, Snape's mention of 'my evidence' 
means nothing, since he repeats what his evidence is 
anyways, and he never mentions who he gave his evidence 
to in the first place. Of course, what Snape *doesn't* say
is "The evidence that I gave to you, Dumbledore, when I 
arrived at the castle and came directly to you." <grins>


Pip wrote:
We know he doesn't talk to Fudge straight away. The
conversation with Fudge on the staircase in Ch.21 
implies that it is the first chance Fudge and Snape 
have had to talk (Fudge notices Snape's cut, for 
example).

I reply:
We *don't* know that he didn't talk to Fudge straight away.
You're filling in the blanks again.

And anyways, I would argue to the contrary. The conversation 
as we hear it begins with "Shocking business, shocking...
miracle none of them died... never heard the like..."
(PoA, US softcover, Hermione's Secret, 386) 

You read the beginning of a conversation?

This implies to me that Snape has had time to relay
most of the story already, so that Fudge can respond to 
it in such a way. How long would it take to find Fudge,
deal with Sirius, get the kids to the hospital and
tell the story? 40 minutes? Sounds about right.


I wrote: 
NO, the person they're avoiding mention of is LUPIN.
<snip all the other stuff I was totally wrong about>

Pip wrote:
Err, well actually, Tom, it's because he *does*.
Earlier in the chapter he talks to Fudge about the 
kids being 'out of bounds, at night, consorting 
with a werewolf and a murderer...'

I reply: 
Point taken. On that note, no need to be quite so
harsh later, was there? A slip of canon - not so bad.
The rest of my "slips" are just differences of 
interpretation between us, if you notice.


Pip wrote:
If you only accept inferences when they're based in
canon, then might I suggest that you read canon more 
carefully? For example, you didn't notice that in GoF 
Snape quite definitely knows that Sirius Black was an 
animagi (possibly not that he's a dog), because he was 
told that in PoA. Or that in PoA Snape does mention
Lupin to Fudge. Just not by name.

I reply:
You know Pip, I had not quite gotten the idea from all of
your other posts that you were nearly this fierce. ;-)

So, in happy reply, I think a better knowledge of the 
distinction between "quoting canon" and "filling in 
blanks in canon" would be in order.

Duly noted, all the same. And not that I don't appreciate
your filling in of the gaps. I'll try to be more careful in
future installments. 

To reiterate:

-The assumption that the opening door is 
Snape entering is only an assumption, not fact.

-If Snape didn't know that Sirius was a
dog, that's because Dumbledore didn't tell him, which
is weird, because if he didn't know Sirius was a dog, 
then why would he know Pettigrew's a rat?

-The Lupin mention? You got me there. Point 
completely conceded.


Pip wrote:
OK, Tom, you asked for it when you remarked in post 51378 
that "Magic Dishwasher is very interesting, although I'm not sure 
it's entirely thorough in its reading of the text," [Big, evil 
grin].

I reply:
Well, I might add that I said that when someone used MD to explain a 
question I had about PS/SS. Please forgive me if I don't accept MD as 
canon when it's used. It's a good theory. It's not *that* good.


Pip wrote:
<snip sarcasm>
[Ok, Ok, I'll put my claws back in now. ]

I reply:
Yee-owch, no kidding.

You know, I thought I took all the necessary steps - 
compliments to all on innovation, on approach, on 
quite a lot, I thought.

Oh well, my point is that if you read the text looking 
for ways to prove MD, then you'll find them. And when
you can't find anything IN the text to support the point,
then it's easy to make it up by arguing what isn't in the
text:

Various sentences from Pip in this post:
-"He does not say 'even I never knew', for example."
-"Notice that while this appears to be a logical sequence, it doesn't 
have to be."
-"All he has to do is (say) not mention that James Potter had also 
told him, several years previously."
-"It does *not* read 'mingled fury and surprise'."
-"He doesn't yell, he doesn't jump backwards."
-"Dumbledore doesn't even try to save Sirius." 
-"He doesn't even *suggest* to Fudge that he might like to hear what 
Sirius has to say."
-"One thing Snape *doesn't* hear?"

In other words what is there doesn't have to be correct? And what's 
not there is perfectly acceptable interpretation, and even should take
precedence over what is?

Hey - negative proofs or not, at least you admit
freely that it all hinges on the off-canon stuff. 

But it's all from the 'canon doesn't say so' school of thought, 
which, like I said before, could be used to prove that orange is 
blue 'because the dictionary doesn't say it isn't.'

But I haven't given up! ;-)

-Tom, who really does love the theory of Magic Dishwasher, and agrees 
with many of the premises, but is not totally convinced by the 
methods used to prove them.