Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 141670

Pippin:
> > The blood needs to be explained because it contradicts something 
we've been told: AK doesn't cause any sign of damage. If the
explanation is that the AK killed him and Dumbledore bled
posthumously, that doesn't move the plot forward. It's dramatically
dead. If the explanation is that the AK didn't work for some reason,
that moves the plot away from Guilty!Snape.
> 
Nora:
> I guess my reaction to the 'not moving the plot forward' based on 
> that detail is: so what?  There are lots of other ways to move the 
> plot forward that don't rely upon that detail.  Not everything is 
> dramatically relevant.  You've made a good case for how this detail 
> could be sufficient for a result, but you can't make a case for 
> necessity.

Carol:
However, the blood is not the only incongruous detail that requires an
explanation. So do the closed eyes (not seen in any AK victim--Cedric,
the Riddles), the peaceful expression (I know you've argued that DD
had come to terms with death, and I agree, but an AK wouldn't give him
time to compose his expression--or close his eyes), the delay in
releasing Harry from the freezing spell, the absence of a blinding
flash (not the same as a "jet"--note that the flash from Wormtail's AK
is so bright that Harry can see it through closed eyes and that a
blinding flash of green light is his own first memory). And AKs don't
send people over battlements. They fall instantly to the ground. And
nonverbal spells have been emphasized throughout HBP, as have Snape's
uncanny cleverness. Put all these together, or even examine them
separately, and there is plenty of room to doubt that Snape's spell
was an ordinary AK, or even an AK at all. And all of which moves the
plot forward in a way that Harry's face value interpretation does not.

Pippin:
> > *Nice*?  "If you are ready...if you are prepared." Whatever Snape
was in for that night,  nice had nothing to do with it. And Fudge
showed no sign of wanting to throw Snape into Azkaban, either, so what
trouble was Snape trying to stay out of there?
> 
Nora:
> I don't credit Snape with the kind of foresight which many listies 
want to give to both him and Dumbledore.  He likes his position as it
is, but he surely doesn't know exactly what is coming in the future.
Staying at Hogwarts is a vantage point for observation, and one which
 (as he notes) has benefits no matter what he has to do. <snip>

Carol:
Certainly being at Hogwarts has benefits, some of which Snape cites in
"Spinner's End." But as Pippin seems to be suggesting, the comfort
level is considerably lessened in GoF when the Dark Mark starts to
return. We see Karkaroff's hysteria over it, contrasted with Snape's
calm determination to remain at Hogwarts ("Flee, then. Flee!") and we
know that he reported the darkening mark to Dumbledore (Pensieve
scene). As Snape tells Bellatrix in "Spinner's End," he had plenty of
time to make up his mind what to do. Dumbledore's words, "If you are
ready, if you are prepared" (along with the apprehension that prevents
him from speaking for several minutes before Snape leaves on an
unstated mission ("You know what I must ask you to do") imply that
Dumbledore and Snape have indeed prepared for this mission, which we
find out in HBP was returning to Voldemort. Almost certainly the
explanations Snape gives in "Spinner's End" are the same explanations
he had *prepared* for the inevitable moment when Voldemort returned
and the DEs were summoned.

None of this is reading too much into the text. It is all right there
in canon. No foresight is required. Even Karkaroff, who has no plans
for confronting Voldemort, knows what it means. Karkaroff flees.
Snape, in contrast, has made his plans, knowing the mission on which
DD would inevitably send him. He is "ready." He is "prepared." Neither
his position at Hogwarts nor Dumbledore can protect him from
Voldemort's vengeance against a follower he believes to be unfaithful.
Only his own wits and his skill at Occlumency can save him from the
death threatened by Voldemort in the graveyard scene (admittedly not
witnessed by Snape himself but probably anticipated). *And* he shows
Fudge his Dark Mark, as Pippin says, which he certainly did not need
to do if all he wanted was to retain his comfortable position at
Hogwarts. The only point in showing the Dark Mark, revealing himself
as a one-time Death Eater (or reminding Fudge of his tainted past if
Fudge already knows), is to prove to the obstinate Fudge that LV is
really back--hardly the action of a loyal Voldemort follower or OFH!Snape.

Carol, who believes that certain actions and clues cry out to be
noticed and that a straightforward reading without interpretation is
likely to be an incorrect reading