Dumbledore and Gandalf... COME ON HE IS NOT DEAD! not for long! ;)

[pansophy2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 135600

Marianne:

>I have to agree with Sherry on the question of the inadvisability of
>keeping Harry in the dark about whatever grand scheme Snape and DD
>supposedly came up with to cover this non-death. After all, that
>tactic blew up in their faces once before.

Well, an easy answer to that is that Harry never mastered occulmency 
and therefore if Harry knows DD is alive then there is a real risk 
that Voldermort could also discover this. 

The goal of faking DD's death would be three fold.  One, Snape would 
have increased status with Voldermort and the Death Eaters and hence 
access to more information and oppertunities to assist the Order.  
Voldermort would likely come out of hiding and expose himself in 
ways that he would not if DD was alive.  And thirdly death is the 
perfect cover for DD to continue to his search for ways to destroy 
Voldermort and protect Harry from behind the scenes.  

The question is what advantage does DD's death have as a story 
teller.  Well, at least for me it makes me feel like Harry is our 
last hope of destroying Voldermort, and therefore if he does it then 
Harry will be all the more the hero.  

However IMO, this line of the story goes against many of the themes 
we've seen thus far.  For one, while Harry has escaped Voldermort 
more than any other person, he has also had loads of help in each 
book, not to mention some luck.  

Also, for me, if we are to believe that love will ultimately destroy 
Voldermort, then isn't it a bitter pill to swallow that love's 
siblings "trust" and "faith" in others would be the thing that kills 
DD?  

Frankly, given Harry's complete inability to handle even Snape, I 
don't see how Harry can realistically handle Voldermort in the span 
of a single book and I just don't see how it can be done with DD.  
Even if Snape kills Voldermort, or makes it possible, no one would 
believe that he didn't kill DD for his own advantage no matter what 
he said or did. 

One more thing, as a story-teller, Serius' death may have been 
necessary for us to believe that DD could really be dead. Plus, 
bringing DD back in some way does not seem as trite given that a 
main character does in fact die in the series. 

In my mind, it is perfectly plausible that the the liquid Harry 
forced Dumbledore to drink at the horocrux site was really a potion 
devised by Dumbledore/Snape to put the drinker into suspended 
animation for some period of time...enough time for a furneral and 
such to take place. Snape triggers the final step of the potion with 
a silent spell, feigns the forbidden curse, and leaves as if he has 
killed DD. When DD awakes after a few days buried in the ground, he 
simply appartates to the location of his choosing.

The unbreakable promise may not take effect until Draco is in danger 
from DD, hence Snape not dying during any of Draco's failed attempts 
with the necklace and such.  Therefore, as long as DD does not 
attempt to harm Draco, which he never does, Snape is not obligated 
by the promise to kill DD. 

Harry's inability to block Voldermort from his mind would mean that 
he would have to be in the dark on the plan.  Plus, Harry would 
confirm to everyone (and believe) that Snape killed DD, as would the 
Death Eaters to Voldermort, ensuring that Snape would be in good 
position to help the order when the time comes and faciltate 
Voldermort's false sense of invincibility. 

To me at least, the plausiblity of the story becomes much harder 
with DD dead than alive, and the overarching lesson that love is 
greater than evil becomes blury at best.  

-pan