Snape didn't kill DD with AK!! And here's the evidence

[lolita_ns]

No: HPFGUIDX 138730

> Zgirnius:
> Oh, the most important reason some of us want the spell to be 
> anything but a successful AK is not plot-related, rather, it 
relates 
> to character development. Is Severus Snape a man who is capable of 
> forming the requisite intent to perform the AK, an Unforgiveable 
> Curse, successfully against Dumbledore, who is such a good man, and 
> to whom Snape owes so much? 
<snip>
> And there could be a plot reason as well. If Snape is still on the 
> good side, how is the good side to ever realize this? JKR has many 
> options open to her: the grand self-sacrificing gesture by Snape 
> and/or unambiguous bottled memories of Dumbledore come to mind. But 
> another way could be for someone like Hermione (a logical thinker) 
to 
> learn of the possible oddities in the death scene and be inspired 
to 
> investigate further.



And how exactly is character development unrelated to the plot? A 
little literary lecture: according to the Russian Formalism, Plot/ 
Story is the raw metarial used in any literary work (the story 
itself, characters - yes, characters as well -, themes, motifs etc.) 
Discourse/Recit is the plot artistically re-arranged in accordance 
with the storyteller's wishes. So, characters are part of plot. End 
of story.

This digression aside, has not Snape demonstrated, over and over 
again, that he is capable of extreme hatred needed to cast AK 
(remember the confrontation with Black in the Shrieking Shack)? Boy, 
he even invented an innocent little spell like Sectumsempra when he 
was 16! I really don't understand what could possibly be gained by 
Snape's curse on Dumbledore not being AK. The grand-sacrificing Good!
Snape's gesture you are talking about will, if it happens, probably 
be something along the lines of Darth Vader in The Return of The 
Jedi, which will most definitely kill him (maybe he'll throw himself 
in front of Harry to save him or something like that). The revealing 
of Snape as the good guy will have any literary value only if his 
innocence is proven after his demise. Everything else would be a 
betrayal of the genre's expectations.

Someone also said that Dumbledore pulled a Pettigrew. Hello?! It's 
DUMBLEDORE we're talking about. Remember, the guy who believes that 
death is but the next great adventure? Why on Earth would he fake his 
own death? He has no angry friend he tricked to hide from. Does it 
really sound plausible to you that Dumbledore would leave Harry to 
face everything alone, that he would endanger the position of his 
trusted spy by making it seem that he killed him, that he would leave 
both Hogwarts and the Order on their own so that he could be 
a 'shadow leader'? No, it doesn't. And, again, in the highly unlikely 
event of Dumbledore's faked death, the literary conventions of the 
genre would be betrayed and the readers would - rightfully - feel 
tricked. Rowling isn't the world's greatest writer, she's actually 
very far from it, but I really don't think that she is that much 
ignorant of literary theory and history. The Still Alive!Dumbledore 
theory has the same reek as the Sirius-Is-Not-Really-Dead one.


Lolita.