Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? )

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 141627


> Nora replies to Carol:
> This involves, as a methodological principle, the issue that what we 
> think is mysterious--such as your questioning of whether it was 
> actually an AK or not--may well not be mysterious.  If we want to 
> argue for 'directness', then we are in fact obliged to take a 
> minimizing approach to the assumptions of mystery. 
> 
> So in this general approach, it is pretty self-evident that Snape 
> killed Dumbledore, because it requires the construction of a 
> considerable edifice of assumptions to argue that oh, the AK here is 
> exceptional <snip> 

Valky:
Oh Nora, I can't let that one slide by, sorry. <bg>

The questionableness of the Avada Kedavra on the tower *is* minimizing
the approach to assumptions.  Consider what assumptions need to be
made to *believe* that it was an successful Killing curse. There's
your edifice! You have to assume Dumbledore was tricked by Snape first
and is it a huge assumption to say Dumbledore was fooled for 16 years
and ultimately betrayed despite repeated warnings from so many trusted
allies? Yes it is. 

I see that you are saying, it's not a mystery, it is what it looked
like and then all assumptions are minimised. But they aren't minimised
by that at all. At the very least the assumption that Dumbledore was
every bit the old fool for Snape *must* be explained. All sorts of
double backflips are then required and that's a fact, right?

If you skip this assumption you can go to some simpler facts and
minimise the mystery, but if you make this assumption then you have a
*lot* of backflipping and explaining to do. <g>
 
Here I'll start you off with a double quadruple one. Snape killed
Dumbledore so then explain how Dumbledore died peacefully, with his
peace shattered and the boy he was protecting, the hope of the whole
wizard world, left alone and unprepared at the top of the tower with
his betrayer. 

Valky