Dumbledore and Unforgivables (was Re: Ghouls and Inferni)

[ceridwennight]

No: HPFGUIDX 136402

John Kearns <jmkearns at g...> wrote:
> (snip)
>...I don't think Dumbledore would /ever/ ask someone to 
> perform a Killing Curse on /anything/ for /any/ reason.  Doesn't he 
> say it's the supreme act of evil?  It tears the soul, which can 
> never be redeemed?  Whether through legilimency at that moment or 
by 
> any sort of pre-arranged plan, it doesn't matter - I just don't 
> think it fits Dumbledore's character any more than begging for his 
> life would fit it.

But if he was 'dead', or nearly dead, anyway, and nothing could stop 
him, would it be a request for someone to *murder*?  I agree with the 
poster who said that JKR probably wouldn't get into the euthanasia 
debate in what is supposed to be a series of children's books, so I'm 
having trouble with this whenever I recall that this *is* a series of 
children's books.  Could it be represented as stopping a burgeoning 
Inferus, instead of killing Dumbledore, by the author in the next 
book?  I do think what can be done within the bounds of a children's 
story must be a consideration, though she's gone very close to the 
edge before, and some would say she's fallen off and hasn't landed 
yet.

How can one recognize an Inferus, or one in the making?  Did 
Dumbledore show all the signs?  And if he was already on his way, how 
did he keep his own intellect until that very last moment?

(snip)

> (John's choices):
> a) Dumbledore was somehow already dead or mostly dead, 
> thus making it not evil; 
>(b) the AK was faked; or 
>(c) Snape is evil...
(snip)  
> Are there any other explanations?

I backed away from quite saying that Dumbledore was dead already.  If 
so, then how did he hold a conversation, or even weakly plead?  I 
suppose we could say that Dumbledore was the greatest wizard in the 
world at the time so nothing is impossible for him, but that leads us 
into more God-like qualities, and he admits that he's human and makes 
mistakes.

Yet, if his statement to Draco had more than one meaning, for more 
than one person to hear, that V couldn't kill someone if they were 
already dead, then it would be an extreme, even creepy, yet oddly 
logical, conclusion to come to, based on the events.  Harry did 
perform some sort of resurrection spell in the cave, after all, did 
he revive Inferus!Dumbledore?  We do know that ghosts exist in the 
Potterverse.  How long before the ghost is aware of its existence?  
How soon before that ghost can interact?  Does it retain its 
memories?  Can it possess an Inferus body, even temporarily?  Could 
it merely hang on for long enough to get its immediate affairs in 
order?

I do come down on the SnapeIsNotVoldemort's side of things.  I don't 
know if he's merely ESE!ButOnOurSide, or TW!  But Rowling has offered 
us what seemed like conclusive proof before, about many characters, 
which have been twisted around to prove the opposite.  I wouldn't put 
anything past her.

Ceridwen.