PART II - Objections to Magic Dishwasher - Shrieking Shack

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51828

Thanks for all of the responses to my previous
post on Magic Dishwasher. I wasn't able to get 
on yesterday, so I didn't read all of them until 
this morning, at which point, it was a pleasure 
to see so many responses.

Before I continue with my objections/questions I'd 
like to get a few things out of the way:

1) Please, Please, Puh-lease don't call a halt, 
dearest, adorable, lovable Mods <wink, wink, wink.> 
As long as we all promise to keep civil tones? 
Pretty Please with a big bright cherry on top? And 
sprinkles?  ;-)

2) For the record, I *adore* Magic Dishwasher, or at 
least, the idea behind it.  There's no reason I would 
bother to read through everything if I wasn't thoroughly 
intrigued by it.  I fully admire the analysis, and the 
time and effort that has gone into it.  But that doesn't
mean I'm going to acquiesce without some prying for
information.  OR, for that matter, that I'm not going
to try to strengthen it a little bit by poking.

3) Mr. Wolf, I said that I had read through as 
many of the objections and replies "as I could 
stomach," because there really are quite a few. 
And although I wanted to learn what I could from 
the threads, it's really quite a bit to hope for 
that I'd read absolutely every one of them before 
commenting on the subject.  I'm still reading them 
through now, and will try to keep it up until I 
understand, or am at least familiar with most of them. 
But one thing I'm certain of: MD hasn't been poked 
at from every conceivable direction yet.

4) As I mentioned in my first post, I believe that the Shrieking 
Shack analysis actually *weakens* MD because I find several of the 
assumptions leading to it to be unpalatable and unbelievable. Now, 
one can assert that the Shrieking Shack analysis *as is* is at the 
very heart of MD, but I would counter only that it's only so in two 
ways: 

a) as Pip and her enforcers (I like that term, stolen wholeheartedly 
from one of Elkins' posts) currently see their theory, and  
b) as it stands *now.* 

In other words, I think that MD might be served better in other ways, 
with either other interpretations of canon, or else better canon 
itself. And incidentally, "Yes, Amanda," quite right, although I'm 
not sure that I would have been able to phrase it in just that way. 
Thanks for that.

5) Another thing that, IMHO, weakens MD is it's acceptance of the 
possibility of Dumbledore lying. IMHO, JKR is leaving us clues along 
the way, so that we *could* figure everything out if we put the clues 
together properly.  

"I shall not, of course, lie." Dumbledore to Harry (PS/SS, American 
paperback, "The Man With Two Faces," 298)  

This is only my inference, but from everything that Albus Dumbledore 
has said in all of the books we have, I get no indication, 
whatsoever, at any point, that he is lying. Misdirecting? Okay. 
Asking slanted questions? Okay.  

Lying? Absolutely, one-hundred percent not. Dumbledore, IMHO, either 
answers the question truthfully, changes the subject, or else he 
refuses to answer. I don't think that she'd write him as a liar. And 
I think that this response from him in the first novel is supposed to 
make us trust him. No matter how much doubt is painted onto any of 
the others, Dumbledore Isn't A Liar. (In my own notes, I use D.I.A.L. 
for this.)

6) I hope that Pip gets a chance to reply to my reply to her on the 
matter. Or if she'd rather let others do so, then that is cool by me.

7) It seems to me that poking at this theory in particular has, ummm, 
resulted in some degree of vehemence in the replies. I hope that that 
kind of emotion isn't conveyed through my posts, because I'm not 
feeling angry or assaulted or anything like that. All the same, it 
does seem as though you guys are taking this personally, and I'd hope 
that that's not the case. Granted, MD would seem to have taken a lot 
of heat. It seems quite reasonable to me that this just might be the 
case because it's SO much drawn from inference. Again, "Yep, 
Amanda."  ;-)  Exactly why I want to pick at it a little.

8) When I pick at MD, I'm not, in any way, poking at *you.* And if 
I'm wrong in reading sarcasm and anger in your replies, then I 
apologize. For the record, I'm not out to hurt any feelings, or 
assault/attack/provoke or anything of the sort. 


Right then, moving on.  I'll just leave the other stuff out of the 
way until it's answered.  I've got two more objections, and then 
(because this post got SO long that I didn't want anyone to get 
sidetracked by my objections) my next post has a possible alternate 
reading of the Shrieking Shack scene, just for fun.  ;-)


**Snape's Oscar-Winning Performance**

Pip's post 39662 suggests that Snape would like Harry to assume 
control of the situation in the Shrieking Shack, in order for Harry 
to acquire the life debt from Peter.  Now, the first thing *I* 
thought was, "well, Snape being knocked-out *enabled* the life debt. 
So how was it part of the plan. And then I got to "***Snape's genuine 
concussion was a (nearly disastrous) accident***" and the part that 
suggests that Snape was hoping that Harry'd use expelliarmus to 
disarm Snape, and that Snape would pretend to be knocked out.

My question here, is, how could Sirius and Lupin be expected to 
believe that a disarming spell from a 13-year old wizard would knock 
Snape out?  I mean, I think it's very easy to believe that Harry 
could disarm him.  But knock him out? No, I find that very difficult 
to swallow.  Sirius and Lupin are not dumb.  There's very little way 
something like that could knock him out.  In CoS, Snape doesn't knock 
Lockhart out, and Snape is *far* more trained than Harry, and 
Lockhart *is* a shoddy wizard, as he admits himself.

And if Snape *wasn't* knocked out, then, assuming that events 
continue to unfold roughly as they do in the book, Snape would by 
necessity hear about Pettigrew's rat shape.  So, then, wouldn't the 
mission be jeopardized in its entirety, if Snape heard about 
Pettigrew being a rat? If Dumbledore and Snape put this together, I 
don't think that they'd use that in the methodology. And if Snape was 
on his own here, I don't think that he'd improvise that as a part of 
the plan. It's just not believable.


**The Map**

"My master sent me word of my father's escape. He told me to stop him 
at all costs. So I waited and watched. I used the map I had taken 
from Harry Potter. The map that had almost ruined everything."
"Map?" said Dumbledore quickly. "What map is this?"
"Potter's map of Hogwarts. Potter saw me on it. <snip rest of 
passage>"
(GoF, US paperback, "Veritaserum," 690)

Okay.  There's too much canon to quote here line for line, so I'll 
just paraphrase and provide the appropriate references.

Lupin says that he had an idea that HHR would try to sneak down to 
see Hagrid before Buckbeak's execution.  He was watching the 
Marauder's Map.  He watched the whole scene unfold, and then ran out 
to follow HHR + Sirius and Pettigrew into the tunnel beneath the 
Whomping Willow.  (PoA, US paperback, "Cat, Rat, and Dog," 347-48)

Later, inside the Shrieking Shack, Snape says that he dropped by 
Lupin's office to give him some Wolfsbane Potion.  At which point, he 
noticed what was happening on the map, and, knowing all that he 
needed to know, he followed along.  (PoA, US paperback, "The Servant 
of Lord Voldemort," 358)

If Snape is Dumbledore's lieutenant, shouldn't he have *told* Albus 
about this discovery, I mean, if we're supposed to believe that Albus 
sent Snape to the Shrieking Shack?

So, back to the passage I did quote.  Crouch says "blah blah blah 
Potter's map." Dumbledore says "Map?" Crouch reiterates "Potter's map 
of Hogwarts."  Crouch *says* "Potter's map" before Dumbledore asks 
about it, so there can be no misunderstanding.

Now. MD postulates that Snape is Dumbledore's loyal lieutenant.  And 
canon clearly states that Dumbledore trusts him.  And canon also 
states that Lupin is part of Dumbledore's "old crowd."  Yet, he 
doesn't know.  Why would he lie?  I mean, one way or the other, he 
knows now, so there's no point in pretending that he doesn't know 
about the map, *even* if you assume that there's another traitor in 
the room.  So, all this taken into consideration, why doesn't 
Dumbledore know about the Marauder's Map?



So, I didn't notice these in the previous discussions, but then 
again, I could be retreading ground. If I am, please forgive me... 
I'll get to it later on. If I'm not, though, please answer.

Either way, I'm eagerly awaiting the response.

-Tom