Who killed Dumbledore? Heroes and Not.

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 145165


Steve <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > bboyminn:
> > <snip> I don't think Snape pretending to kill Dumbledore 
> > after Dumbledore expires from the Potion in any way makes 
> > Harry a killer. It neither makes Snape a hero, or Harry a
> > villain.

Lupinlore:
> <snip> I think that is PRECISELY what this scenario does.  
> As with most DDM! speculation, it falls afoul of the fact 
> that this is NOT SNAPE'S STORY.  Nor is it Dumbledore's 
> story.  This kind of convoluted (and unbelievable) scenario
> has a tendancy to pull the focus completely off of Harry 
> and his decisions and onto the decisions and plans of 
> Dumbledore and Snape. <snip> 


Montavilla:

You know, it wasn't Sirius's story either, but that didn't 
stop him from having a convoluted scenario that we spent 
THREE CHAPTERS unraveling while everyone held each other off 
in a Mexican wand standoff.

I'm not exactly complaining, because I loved PoA.  I'm just 
saying that Harry is not the only character in the series 
entitled to an interesting storyline.

There's tons of stuff we don't know about that potion.  Was 
it a poison?  If so, how fast would it work, exactly?  Would 
Snape be able to cure it even if the Death Eaters weren't 
around?

Since we don't know, we can as easily say that Dumbledore 
could have died from it as not.  I tend to think it was fatal
--on the principle that you don't put a gun on the set unless 
someone is going to use it in the third act.  However, I'm not 
inclined to think it was the actual instrument of murder.  It 
works better for the Vow if the death came from Snape's wand.

Heh.  Now I'm being reminded of the Titanic, when it's not 
bad enough that Rose and Jack are on a ship that's quickly 
sinking into the ocean.  No, her fiance has to start shooting 
at them...  Drowning isn't enough for them?

AK isn't enough for Dumbledore?  We have to have him poisoned 
AND thrown off a tower to boot?