Were Dumbledore & Snape involved in James & Lilly's death+ LV downfall?

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 90092



The major problem I have with your (Irina's) theory is that it means 
(as you said in a previous post) that Dumbledore plain and simply 
lied in his OoP denouement speech. The thing is, if DD lied then, 
then each and every speech he has made is suspect. You (the reader) 
can't trust anything he has said, can't take things he has said as 
facts within the story. BUT, JKR specifically said that she uses DD 
as a means to convey information to the reader (DD and Hermione). So, 
as far as the construction of the narrative goes, it would be 
completely destructive to have DD lie to Harry in such a poignant 
moment. 

Irina:

> the ONLY way LV could be defeated is if he marked one of the boys 
> mentioned in the prophecy as "his equal". He found out just enough 
> to encourage him to take the necessary steps to his own downfall  
> (ie attack Harry), but not enough to put him on guard. 

Naama:

A prophecy, by its very nature, is a paradoxical thing. LV has, or 
should have, learned this through experience: the very effort he made 
to prevent its realization, realized it. DD, as a wise man, wouldn't 
have meddled in the workings of a prophecy. Unlike LV, he would have 
known that the wisese thing is to let this destiny realize itself.

Irina:

> I do not think that good and evil in the books are simple concepts. 
> The "good" and the "bad" characters are not neatly segregated and 
> identified. In fact, Harry constantly learns that people are so 
> complex that they cannot be divided into "good" and "bad".

Naama:

I agree with the second part of this paragraph, but not the first. I 
think, in fact, that good and evil are simple concepts in the books. 
At least, they are simple in the sense that they are absolute - JKR 
doesn't appear to hold a relative view on morality. I.e., Voldemort 
and the DEs aren't similar to real world fanatics, who may hold a 
terrible ideology (in our eyes) but do so in *good* faith. The worst 
bigots and inquisitors didn't choose evil; they chose good, as 
defined under their belief system. This is not the case in the 
Potterverse. The whole point of Voldemort is that he chose evil - as 
such. Remember, "there is no good and evil, only power and those too 
weak to seize it" (paraphrase)? This is the ultimate evil (and the 
difference between him and an evil character like Umbridge) - to 
completely deny morality. 


Irina:
 
> I think JKR's writing is sophisticated enough to create characters 
> and plots that are not black and white but are imbued with moral 
> dilemmas. And this would be one of those: if James and Lily were 
> willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the multitudes that 
> would have been destroyed by LV's continued reign - should DD have 
> enabled it? 

Naama:

I have a factual problem here: if they were willing to be sacrificed, 
why bother with the whole Secret Keeper thing? Why put somebody else -
 a friend of theirs (whether Peter or Sirius) - at risk?

Irina:

> What if they knew nothing about it - would he be 
> justified in sacrificing them for the sake of thousands of others 
> (Coming from a liberal ideological standpoint that each life is 
> infinitely precious and may not be used as a numbers game, I would 
> say "no", but minds may differ - a utilitarian perspective would 
> lead to the opposite view)

Naama:

If DD had a utilitarian perspective, as you call it, he would have 
been training Harry rigorously since he was a baby. He appears to 
have cared enough about Harry (a single, precious life), to avoid 
putting this load on Harry's back. Which even to DD seems, now, 
irresponsible.

Irina:

> > He did have time thereafter to have James and Lily betrayed to 
> their deaths, knowing 
> > that Lily would sacrifice herself in a way that would keep Harry 
> > alive but leave him marked.  I doubt the "Mission Impossible" 
>>team could have brought it off.

Naama:

I completely agree with Jim that there was no way DD could have known 
that Lily would sacrifice herself in the way she did. Nor could he 
have been sure of the effects of such an act. LV was Avada Kedavering 
people left and right, overcoming powerful wizards and witches. The 
prophecy doesn't preclude the possiblity that LV will overcome his 
rival. So, it doesn't even make sense that DD would encourage a duel 
between LV and baby Harry, even he was as manipulating and cold 
hearted as you paint him.



Naama