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

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 141637


> > 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.
> Nora:
> We saw Snape say "Avada Kedavra".  We saw a green jet of light.  We 
> saw said jet of light hit Dumbledore.  You have to do far, far more 
> work to say "It wasn't actually an AK!" than to go "Well damn, that 
> was a killing curse."
> 
> JKR was kind enough to specify the color of the light this time 
> around, nu?  You have to postulate that there is some way to fake  
> the AK, that Snape did it, and then that the fall killed Dumbledore, 
> somehow the potion amazingly killed him after said fall.  That ain't 
> or minimizing assumptions, I think.

Valky:
Okay, no you don't have to postulate that Snape faked the AK. There is
only one, just one, assumption need be made to question that the Avada
Kedavra killed Dumbledore and it is hardly an assumption at all-
assume that is all successful Avada Kedvra's we have seen on living
things in canon are the extent of the effects of a successful Avada
Kedavra on living things.

After that, The Tower is the odd man out. And many applications
follow. We can speculate narrowly on the reason; it could even be that
 it was an *unsuccessful* Avada Kedavra - which requires Snape to fake
nothing; but we *have* with mimimal assumption on our part established
that the Avada Kedavra *is* exceptional as to whether it is the cause
of death. And most importantly IMO bypassed that turbid well of
speculative assumption that the whole trust issue presents in the
mystery.  

So hence my argument is that you have to do far far far more work to
assume that it was a successful betrayal of Dumbledore ending in a
simple deadly Avada Kedavra cast at him by Snape, than you must to
eliminate a successful Avada Kedavra from the mystery.

> Nora:
> I know the exceptionalism argument for the AK, but I think, yet 
> again, that's instance of trying to work around what we 
> have.  'Exceptional' requires, IMO, a better standard of 'normative' 
> than we have at present. 

Valky:
There are five cases of a *successful* Avada Kedavra on a living
beings clear and unambigiously shown in canon and zero contradictions
to these successful Avada Kedavra's *on living things*. Are there the
same number of normalising agents to the assumption that Snape
betrayed and killed Dumbledore by taking advantage of his weakened
state? less contradictions? 

You do have to establish reason for the contradictory case of this
Avada Kedavra on Dumbledore in order to call it successful. And that
takes assumptions, piles of em. ;D


> Valky:
> > 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. 
> Nora:
> Repeated warnings from so many trusted allies?  I can think of Moody 
> in the courtroom scene, and Harry's objections (which Dumbledore 
> never puts to rest), but the rest of the Order seems to have 
> been "Well, we thought Dumbledore knew what he was doing--he sure 
> didn't share..."

Valky:
<g> Well yeah I did take a certain liberty with that statement, but I
am sure there are more cases than you cited. There were a lot of
suspicious people in DD's ear. I think that among the strongest of all
cases that needs be explained away is how Dumbledore could dismiss
Harry! *one of his most trusted* accusing Snape of taking an
Unbreakable Vow, surely that needs to have raised a degree of
suspicion in Dumbledore.


> Nora:
> As well, my personal model doesn't require Dumbledore to have been 
> fooled for 16 years, just for two or so.  There *are* different 
> options than "Snape has always been evil" and "Snape has always been 
> loyal to Dumbledore through and through", so don't make me go get my 
> buddy Mr. Excluded Middle.  

Valky:
Sure, I am open to that if you like. It's certainly not eliminated by
a dodgy looking Avada Kedavra. <bg> my main issue here is with the
notion that taking the scene at face value minimises assumptions to be
going on with. I just can't say that it does at all. Face value as I
percieve it, just takes on board the greatest assumption there is to
be made here, the one that I have long since put in the *too hard
basket*. 

Valky:
> > ... 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.
 
> Nora:
> Acceptance of death (which I assume you're drawing out from the 
> facial expression) is not necessarily the same thing as dying with 
> all your plans in order, when you wanted to.  I can see Dumbledore 
> not fighting against his own death (having the courage to go on, and 
> not fearing death) while still dying under what were, we might say, 
> sub-optimal circumstances.

Valky:
That's a fair assumption. Now tell me where was Fawkes? Why didn't
Harry's scream take form while he screamed at the moment the Avada
Kedavra hit Dumbledore? Why didn't Snape let Dumbledore die of
Voldemort's curse earlier in the year? <g>
Maybe they, and any other questions, can all be explained away, it's
fair enough to say that they can I can probably do it all myself right
here, couldn't I, but it can't be said that they don't need to be
explained at all, surely?

> 
> -Nora almost wishes for a website update to toss us some crumbs
>

Oh you and me both Nora. <bg>

Valky