[HPforGrownups] Objections to Magic Dishwasher - Shrieking Shack

[Amanda Geist]

No: HPFGUIDX 51753

Okay, caveat--I have gone through the last four posts on this and pulled out
the stuff that struck me. I have arranged it in some kind of logical order.
Most of it is discrete points and observations, so my rearrangement probably
does not interfere with sense.

Second caveat--it's damn long. Sorry.

Melody on terrorist war being canon:
Well, to be honest.  The idea of the terrorist war was JKR's not ip's.  It
is canon not theory, so the praise should go to JKR.  That is* what
Voldemort and Dumbledore are doing before the fateful night nd after...or
are you trying to say the terrorist war *is* just a theory and not canon?

Me:
Um. I have read the books as much as anyone and never considered it a
"terrorist war." I looked at the current situation as kind of a tense one, a
period of uneasy suspense. Dumbledore knows that It's Not Over, something
will happen, but I don't think it's an *active* period. To me, "terrorist
war" means a sequence of raids, forays, incidents; this is not what I
perceive here. I can buy that Dumbledore's been active in making *plans,*
but that is not quite the same thing. He's ready, because he's spent a lot
of time with trusted allies and his Pensieve, preparing various
contingencies for any of several scenarios. And now that this scenario is
unfolding, he sets the most appropriate contingency in motion. But that's
not a "terrorist war," so I'd hesitate to say that's "in canon" necessarily.
An interpretation of it as a "terrorist war" can be rooted in canon.

Melody on whether Dumbledore had planned the whole Pettigrew escape:
If you just learned a loyal servant is running back to his master, and you
also heard from you resident psychic that this will probably mean the
stronger rebodiment of the
said master, then would you be so relaxed as Dumbledore if you did not have
a plan in mind already?

Me:
Well, I think he does have a plan. He probably has several, based on several
possible sequences of events, worked out on the basis of several years'
study and soundly educated thought. It does not necessarily follow, though,
that his plan is the Dishwasher.

Tom:
Yes, it is tricky. Granted (and nice memory, there) Hagrid *was* in Azkaban,
and therefore *could* have heard the imprisoned Death Eaters rambling and
wailing. Okay. That I can buy.

Me:
I can buy that too.

Tom continued:
Pip wrote in 39662:
"Snape and Dumbledore already know Peter Pettigrew is Scabbers the Rat."
And
"What canon tells us is what Sirius and Remus *think* about Dumbledore's
knowledge - not what Dumbledore actually does know."

Tom said: No way:

I add:
Tom's right. In fact, there's shreds of canon evidence for Dumbledore *not*
to know this fact. For Dumbledore to know this fact, you must postulate a
degree past "shreds of canon evidence"--you extrapolate from something with
shreds of evidence (that they know Peter's the secret-keeper: required
knowledge for Voldemort's supporters in Azkaban to want to shred him) to
something *based* on that inference (that they know he's a rat Animagus: not
required knowledge for Voldemort's supporters to have in order to want to
kill Peter or rave about him).

Tom on whether various Animagus abilities and identities were known:
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.

Me:
Snape does know that Sirius in an animagus. That is one of the few things he
*did* hear in the Shrieking Shack, that James, Sirius, and Pettigrew
mastered the Animagus spell. He also hears their nicknames, the names on the
Map (which in other threads I have postulated are names he knows all to well
but has not, to this point, connected with his old school foes). But he does
not hear their forms. Harry starts to ask what form his dad took, but
Hermione interrupts him. It is only after Snape is knocked out that the
conversation continues to say what the forms are.

Tom:
2) Since he didn't know that the black dog was Sirius in GoF, we must
conclude with two things:
  a. He didn't know in the Shrieking Shack.
  b. Dumbledore DIDN'T tell his loyal lieutenant later on.

Me:
On the strength and quality of his reaction when Sirius changes in GoF, I
have argued that Dumbledore *has* filled Snape in on the true nature of
events--Snape knows that Sirius was framed, knows the kids weren't
confunded, etc.--but has not told Snape Sirius' form. Because we see
surprise and hatred, but *not* the reaction I think we'd see if Snape still
believed Sirius was a raving mass murderer and a danger.  He'd react more
like Molly Weasley, and probably jump to Dumbledore's defense, to messy
ends...But you are correct, Occam's interpretation of canon does not have
Snape knowing Sirius' animagus form in the Shack.

Pip on same topic:
The world is full of big, black, dogs. I cheerfully admit that they're not
normally found in hospital wings, but it could be the Weasley family pet for
all Snape, McGonagall and Fudge know. [They do tend to make pets of animagi,
after all]

Me (aside):
Explain that last? The only animagus pet that I know of is Peter, and it's
not known that he's an animagus. Who else has a pet animagus?

Pip continued:
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?

Me:
You know, considering the, um, intense nature of the events going on, it's
entirely probable that Snape never even noticed the dog until that moment.
If that's true, Dumbledore may well have told him Sirius' form as well as
his ability, in that unseen scene between the end of PoA and GoF. Yeah! I
bet your're right.

Wolf:
Sirius was roaming the castle in form of a dog. Dumbledore needed him to
have more or less free reign, so Harry could have a chance to save his life.

Me:
Why does Harry have to save Sirius' life? Isn't it Pettigrew's life that
Harry has to save, in MD's view? I'm confused.

Pip, on whether Dumbledore knew about the animagus forms before Sirius told
him:
No, Tom. He doesn't. He says quite clearly that it was an extraordinary
achievement keeping it quiet from him. He does not say 'even I never knew',
for example.

It would have been an extraordinary achievement keeping it quiet from
Dumbledore if Dumbledore had only worked things out *after* the Prank. It
would have been an extraordinary achievement keeping it quiet from
Dumbledore if, after they'd left school, James Potter had said 'Now, there
were some things you *never* found out'. Remember that Dumbledore knew the
Potters well enough to offer to be their
Secret Keeper.

Dumbledore uses 'Prongs' nickname and shows that he knows perfectly well
what form James took. Then when Harry realises that Dumbledore should NOT
know that nickname, Dumbledore smilingly explains that Sirius told him all
about the Marauders becoming animagi. And then he remarks that he remembers
the form Harry's Patronus took at the Quidditch match.

So (Pip concludes):
Dumbledore knows James's animagi form and his nickname.
Dumbledore had been told about the animagi forms last night.
Dumbledore had noticed the form of the Patronus. He thought it was
*unusual*.

Notice that while this appears to be a logical sequence, it doesn't have to
be. Dumbledore can be completely truthful in his comment that Sirius told
him about the animagi last night. All he has to do is (say) not mention that
James Potter had also told him, several years previously.

Me:
This means that Dumbledore was allowing the entire school to live in fear
for some months, in full knowledge that Sirius was able to access the castle
at any time? This means Dumbledore opened the students (and paintings) to
terror and damage, willingly? I can see Dumbledore as a general who will
send his "troops" in to face possible death or worse, but I can't see him
coldly risking the innocent and uninformed.

While James may well have told Dumbledore about his animagus abilities, it's
also possible that he (James) considered it part of his youth, much like my
clandestine toilet-papering expeditions, a fun thing that he left behind. So
I can say it's just as likely he never mentioned it at all. And if he did,
I'm not sure he'd "out" his friends as fellow animagi. Remember, this is
*illegal.* Even if I told a close friend I'd broken the law, I wouldn't tell
anyone else about my compadres. Especially if giving all the details might
inform my very perceptive hearer that I had assisted another trusted person
(Lupin) in betraying that trust (roaming around in were form).

So I'd be inclined toward the more logical reading of these facts.

Wolf:
Snape was close enough to peek at Lupin when he entered the tunnel. We
assume that Lupin was in his wolf form at the time. Now, a real wolf is
between twice and three times as fast as a human on the run (and werewolves
are suposed to be even quicker), so if the wolf had wanted to catch up with
him, Snape wouldn't have had
time to go all the way back the tunnel. And werewolves are driven to hunt
humans (canon, FB). So, Snape was dead. And since James was there with him,
so was he - unless he changed into an animal big enough to control Lupin -
his animagus form. There is no other way for James to save himself and Snape
from a crazed werewolf (no potion in those days). So Snape knows about
James' animagus abilities, and thus so does Dumbeledore (which I'm pretty
sure asked for explainations after the prank).

Me:
I object to this phrasing of conclusions as fact. We simply don't know that
there was no other way for James to do what he did. It needs *In my
opinion,* "there is no other way for James to have saved himself and Snape
from a crazed werewolf." For although this is a valid inference, it is not
canon and shouldn't be stated as fact. Same with your conclusion--this is
your conclusion and should be identified as such: *So I conclude that*
"Snape knows about James' animagus abilities..."

We have no idea how James got Snape out. He may have transformed, he may
not. He may have slammed a door shut. He may have Stunned Lupin. He may have
conjured a fake human closer to Lupin and run off while he was busy. We
don't know; there is no shred of canon for any of these. All of these are
possible. However, if you go on to construct other thoughts on this
conjecture, we can't possibly consider these others as foregone conclusions
(which is how you phrase them). Each time you build on an inference, you get
farther away from the source.

Tom:
But it doesn't *matter.* Dumbledore can *still* be a spymaster, and he can
still be working behind the scenes to send misinformtion to Lord Voldemort.
All of the basics of Magic Dishwasher can remain intack without assuming
that Dumbledore had any control over events in the Shrieking Shack.

Me:
It can? I've never been able to follow the convolutions of MD, myself; it
seemed very elegantly and painstakingly constructed, but very tenuous on
some points, and it goes against what I have perceived as the nature of some
of the players involved.

Wolf growled:
What is my point? That if you don't want to follow our reasoning in the SS
for MD, you don't have to, but if you want to fight against it, you better
come up with something different from "the canon can be interpreted in some
other way".

Me:
Not true. Down, boy. He's not fighting,he's *discussing.* "The canon can be
interpreted in another way" is the *soul* of discussion, which is what this
list is for. Other than the clarification of things that *can* be proven,
just about every single exchange of opinions is based on that differing
interpretations of canon.

I'll postulate that this thread is reaching the "agree to disagree" point,
but the discussion that has gone on in it is not a challenge to MD's
proponents. It is a challenge to MD's premises, and MD's premises are fair
game here. So are the premises of my own cherished beliefs, which many
indeed have challenged (usually as being "cliche" or on the weenie side,
literarily). And I have challenged the premises of those who believe Snape
may be a vampire. And this is only the stuff I follow--all the "Lupin's
evil," "Dumbledore's related," "Percy's <fill in your adjective>," etc.--all
of that other fertile ground is also discussion based on "The canon can be
interpreted in another way."

I propose my own subtheory:
Neither side here is going to "convince" the other
Both sides know this
Both sides have made good points and observations
But both sides may be getting a little too involved on the personal level.

Wolf, that you can demonstrate that you are using a sound and accepted
definiton of theory for your approach to this theory is laudable. Good job.
I sure can't. I just argue what "feels" correct to me. Not everyone's
methods are going to match.

Wolf:
You know, you seem to have a fixation with needing to have eveything
backed-up by *explicit canon*.

Me:
That's not the take I got from Tom's posts. I see a couple of degrees, if
you will, in stuff being based on canon:
--stuff that can be logically inferred from canon (like I'll give you that
Hagrid may have overheard about Pettigrew being the secret keeper while he
was in Azkaban, or that James may have transformed while saving Snape).
That's logically possible, directly from stuff that we can point to in
canon.
--stuff that is built on those inferences (like the previous example also
means they know Pettigrew is a rat animagus, or that Dumbledore must have
been told about James' form because Snape saw it). This is a degree removed
from canon, but still sort of drawn from it.

What I got from Tom's posts, was that he thought MD's composition was too
much the latter, and not enough of the former. Tom, is that right?

Wolf (still growling):
If you don't like it, don't buy it, but that gives you no leverage to
dismiss MD as a valid theory.
and
The difference is that you attack and attempt to invalidate our theory based
on your different interpretation - and using shaky canon to boot.

Me:
Really, in this latest exchange, I haven't seen any dismissing or attacking
(although the tone of your latest one was getting there). Tom's latest posts
have been sprinkled with admiration for Pip and agreement with sections of
this theory. I saw challenges to the premises of MD, but as I said before,
that's the reason we're here. My own theories have been challenged, and in
many cases the poster had a very good point which helped me refine, broaden,
or shift my interpretation a bit.

I think my own problem with MD is not the theory per se. It is that I
perceive you have built it like a monolith on the shore to withstand the
tempests and tsunami, and view challenges as attempts to break it. I avoid
MD because for me, this isn't about breaking monoliths, or convincing, or
winning, or having a "better" argument, or any of that, and I know any
attempts to discuss MD would be met as if I were doing all of those and
more. The Wolf is protective of his territory.

Personally, I see my own theories as puzzles where I have assembled as many
pieces as I can find and am speculating on what the picture will be. Other
people's challenges are other pieces--they may fit, they may not. If they
fit, it may change the picture I think I'll see. If they don't, I don't put
them in my puzzle. Not to say they won't work in someone else's. But I don't
build for the ages, nor get offended when people come with other pieces for
me to consider.

~Amanda