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

[Constance Vigilance]

No: HPFGUIDX 141698

> 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.
> 

CV: You have pointed out the exact two best reasons supporting the 
Dumbledore-Is-Not-Dead argument. The blood is "an incongruous 
detail" that "does not move the plot forward." What's another word 
for this type of thing? A CLUE! It's a CLUE, dammit. How do we know? 
Because it was used earlier in the same book for the same purpose. 
Slughorn used dragon's blood as the final detail for an elaborate 
fake death scene in Chapter 3. Dumbledore even asked about it - the 
blood, specifically. Furthermore, "It still might be reusable." (p. 
66, UK ed.) We have been told that for those who like a dramatic 
deception, dragon's blood is a handy capper. Furthermore, there is a 
vial of dragon's blood that could be used again (for the same thing, 
presumably) and that it likely followed Sluggy to Hogwarts. But 
Dumbledore probably wouldn't have needed it, since he is the 
acknowledged expert at dragon's blood, he probably keeps a vial with 
him for just certain emergencies.

The smile? There is no way that an AK victim would have the time or 
inclination to smile. They don't even put on a death grimace. This 
was Dumbledore's reaction to his own joke on everybody. 

Why was it necessary to have Dumbledore die out of view? As every 
Muggle magician (such as David Copperfield) knows, you hide things 
you don't what the audience to see. You let them come to their own 
false conclusions which you have carefully prepared. Snape and 
Dumbledore sent him over the parapet so that Dumbledore could 
prepare the fake death scene. A soft landing, a bit of bodily 
arranging, a dapping of Dragon's blood and a quick swig of Draft of 
Death and Voila! A scene convincing enough to fool everybody, 
including a faithful phoenix.

Then, just to make certain that those who needed to know that 
Dumbledore is still alive, he sends up his own patronus at the 
funeral, which Harry just catches a glimpse of. Dry your tears, 
people. The Headmaster will return as Dumbledore The White late in 
the last book.

CV, who agrees with:

>
> 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
>