Dumbledore's handwriting, JKR's devotion to children/why this may indica

[anthyroserain]

No: HPFGUIDX 133889

Hokus wrote:
> Personally, I see Dumbledore as a realistically confident wizard.  
> He's not cocky - he doesn't rub his abilities in anyone's face, 
> but he knows what he's capable of and what he's not, he knows his 
> worth, and he's not one to put on a front of false modesty.  
> Personally, I loved that about him.

anthyroserain:

I was never much of a Dumbledore fan before this book, but I really 
liked him in HBP. In a sense, he felt much less cocky to me than 
before, because he relies on Harry so completely.

A lot of the things he says in the last chapters sound unusually  
confident, and I think this is because he has some inkling about 
what's going to happen. Not that he planned his own death, but he 
knows there is a good chance this is going to kill him-- and people
in such extreme situations tend to come across as reckless because 
it doesn't matter if they do.

I don't think the final decision about DD's death was made until 
that (Legilimens?) moment when he and Snape looked at each other. 
But I do think they discussed what might happen beforehand, and that 
they both knew there was a chance of this happening.  


On a related subject: something I haven't see adequately explained 
is that if Snape is ESE, why doesn't he hurt Harry? Yes, he would 
need to keep Harry alive for the Dark Lord, but the DEs could 
certainly have taken Harry with them. Snape could have just done 
that and averted a whole book 7. 

These are, in my opinion, the best simple arguments for the deep-
undercover-for-the-good-side Snape theory:

HunterGreen wrote:
> As a reformed wizard, working against Voldemort at extreme risk, 
> he's just more interesting, but as a bad guy, well, he's 
> *obvious*."

Del wrote:
> I would also be very disappointed to have Sirius be right when he 
> said (paraphrase) : "some spots don't come off", and DD be wrong
> for giving people second chances. I would hate for one conclusion 
> of the series to be that some people don't deserve second chances, 
> that people who are "too evil" (definition of that left to your 
> own taste) simply can't change and repent.

If Snape were evil, it would, in a narrative sense, be lame. Snape 
is the most fascinating character, morally speaking. And that is why 
I will believe he's still working for the good side until we have 
incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

-anthyroserain