MAGIC DISHWASHER (TBAY INTRO): Spying Game Philosophy - The Phoenix must die!

[Wendy St. John]

No: HPFGUIDX 81168

Tom Wall wrote:
 
> 
> First off, I want to point out that while the recent post was *so* 
> articulate and eloquent, it seems kind of, I dunno, *tautological* 
> to me. Let me explain why. 

<snip discussion of why epics by definition involve fundamental 
shifts in the status quo> 

> In that sense (and again, I'm not trying to bash the MDDT here - 
> that post was really *wonderful*) the recent addition to the Magic 
> Dishwasher lore, well... the way I see it, since it's a foregone 
> conclusion that Harry Potter is the great epic of our times, it 
sort > of... goes without saying. That the Potterverse must change 
has been > alluded to repeatedly in the books: goblin rebellions, 
giant wars, > house elf slavery, secrecy from muggles, corruption in 
the Ministry > of Magic, an underlying racism in the entirety of the 
WW itself, the > destruction of the Fountain of Magic Bretheren and 
Dumbledore's > commentary on it... *all* of these relate back to the 
basic epic > premise, namely that the WW must change by the end.
> 

Now me (Wendy):

Well, I don't agree with your point here: that this being part of 
the theory is somehow redundant. If someone has a belief that the 
books are leading towards a epic conclusion of this nature, why not 
mention it as part of a a theory? Nowhere does it state in the 
books, "by the end of Harry's 7th year, the Wizarding World will 
cease to exist as we know it," so I'd say it's an appropriate 
speculation to make. I'm also not sure that it *is* obvious to 
everyone that this is where the books are heading. I happen to agree 
that they are headed in this direction (which is part of why I loved 
Pip's original post, because she said it all so well), but I imagine 
there are loads of people out there who feel this is primarily about 
Harry facing off against Voldemort. So, I don't think it's either 
obvious or redundant to mention it as part of the MD theory.

Tom again:
 
> I think OoP brought many of us closer to realizing that by the 
end, > the house elves (while not freed as a race) will probably be 
> presented at least with that choice; <snip more examples>

Wendy again:

Yes, I think you're absolutely right about this. JKR gave us many 
examples of the discord in the WW, particularly in regards to non- 
and half-humans. We've been getting glimpses of this steadily since 
CoS, and OoP really gave us a clearer picture of the current status 
quo. But once again, saying that it "brought many of us closer to 
realizing" isn't at all the same as saying these things are now 
obvious to everyone who reads the books. 

Something that I've thought a lot about lately is that there are 
many things in the books that now seem overwhelmingly "obvious" to 
me - just because I've discussed or followed discussions about them 
on this list for the past year and a half. But that doesn't mean 
that someone experiencing the books for the first time will 
automatically pick up on these things. I think we're 
reading/interpreting at a pretty high level in here, and for that 
reason our ideas about what is "obvious" may be skewed. So, when 
writing a theory, I think it's a good idea to make it as detailed as 
possible, to make sure that the point the theorist is making is 
accessible to everyone - not just to those who may have already 
analyzed the books to death, or who come to the table with 
preconceived notions about the storyline.


Back to Tom:

<lots of snippage> 
>I > thought it was sort of a misnomer before (see the posts related 
to 
> DARK LADLES and SUNLIGHT ULTRA), but now, as Fictional!Pippin 
> pointed out, it's progressed beyond itself. It really has been 
> almost superceded by OoP, which takes for granted spy-lore and 
> covert activities. 

Now me (Wendy):

Heh heh heh . . . well, wouldn't that just be a good argument for 
the fact that it was a pretty sound theory from the start? We may 
take spy-lore and covert activities for granted now, but the MD team 
were among the first to spot these things happening before they 
became so overt in OoP. <g>


Tom again:

<more snippage> 
>The old theory used to revolve around several basic precepts: one, 
that 
> Snape was in the Shrieking Shack as an agent, acting on behalf of 
> Dumbledore, in order to: two) ensure that Pettigrew escaped to 
> Voldemort, thereby: three) facilitating (via his severed hand) a 
> flaw in the potion "Flesh, Blood, and Bone," which Voldemort used 
to 
> bring himself back to life, therefore: four) this flaw in the 
potion 
> would enable Harry to ultimately triumph over the Dark Lord.
> 
> But this latest post doesn't address these at all. What about the 
> Prophecy? Hasn't it nullified the "flaw in the potion" line of 
> thought, unless we construct an argument that might run thusly: 
> that "Albus loves Harry, and Harry's love is the power that the 
Dark 
> Lord knows not, therefore Albus created the flaw due to love for 
> Harry and so the flaw in the potion (which is still ultimately 
going 
> to be Voldemort's demise) is completely in line with the 
prophecy." 
>> 
> My point is that the prophecy mentions nothing about a flaw in the 
> potion engineered by Dumbledore. And unless we take it very 
> liberally and with much salt, the Prophecy seems to nullify a 
great 
> deal of the old MAGIC DISHWASHER in the same fashion that it's 
> hobbled 'Heir of Gryffindor.'
>

Wendy again:

I don't see any conflict between the idea that Dumbledore wanted 
Voldemort to come back using the "flawed potion," and the fact that 
the prophecy doesn't mention the potion. (This is what you're saying 
here, isn't it)? Dumbledore heard a prophecy that a boy born at the 
end of the seventh month would have the power to defeat the dark 
lord (at least that's one rough interpretation, and it seems to be 
the one Dumbledore is using). Why should the prophecy mention the 
potion at all? I assume the potion was something that occurred to 
Dumbledore independently - he wouldn't need to hear a prophecy 
saying, "a flawed potion will be the key to the dark lord's 
downfall." 

DD knows/believes that Harry is the key to vanquishing Voldemort, 
but he doesn't know just how that is going to happen. He may have 
his suspicions, but I don't believe feels absolutely certain that he 
*knows* what power Harry possesses, or how Voldemort's downfall will 
come about. If Dumbledore knew that there was a way to create a 
flawed potion that would put Voldemort back in a mortal body with a 
weakness of which Voldemort would not be aware, why wouldn't he try 
and pull this off if he had the opportunity? Maybe it wouldn't work, 
but maybe it would. It might even prove to be the key. Harry has 
some power . . . maybe now this power resides in Voldemort as well 
(because of the potion), and that will be what brings about 
Voldemort's downfall in the end. Or maybe not. But why not try? 

This actually makes the MD theory stronger now in my mind. Before 
OoP, I always thought the whole "Dumbledore orchestrated the flawed 
potion" thing was a big stretch. But now, knowing that Dumbledore 
had knowledge of a prophecy which juxtaposes Harry and Voldemort 
like this, it makes much more sense to me that Dumbledore would try 
and capitalize on this relationship if at all possible. In other 
words, that he would pursue the flawed potion idea specifically 
*because* of the bond he believes exists between Voldemort and 
Harry - a bond that he knows about because of the prophecy. 
Dumbledore doesn't know that it will be successful, but I can't see 
how he could be certain that it *wouldn't* be successful, either. So 
why not try and cover all the bases? 

Just a few thoughts,

:-)
Wendy
(Who is fonder now of MD than she was before OoP)