Interpretation (was Re: Dumbledore's "“peaceful expression”?

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 141816


> Potioncat:
> I agree the "look of peace" was an interpretation that sort of 
fixed 
> itself as coming from canon; I also think the interpretation itself 
is 
> still valid. I'll also accept as valid the argument the the 
expression 
> is meaningless, although I wouldn't agree with that view.
> 
> Now, consider the famous 5 hour delay that has so tarnished 
Professor 
> Snape's otherwise gleaming reputation. That's interpretation too.
>


Neri:
The 5 hrs *difference* between the time Umbridge took Harry and 
Hermione to the forest and the time of the Order members breaking 
into the DoM – this time difference *is* canon. It might be a flint, 
and in that case it's flinty canon, like Bill and Charlie's ages. It 
might actually be only 4 hrs (or it might be 6 hrs), but there *is* 
certainly several hours difference, corroborated not by one but many 
canon details that fit quite well together. You can't make this time 
difference disappear unless you make totally absurd assumptions, such 
as dinnertime at Hogwarts only 3 hrs before first light of dawn, or 
the battle between the Order and the DEs taking 4 hrs.

Snape's *delay* during that period is, indeed, an interpretation, and 
I never pretended it's canon. The problem is that, out of these 
several hours of difference, what isn't Snape's delay must be the 
Order's delay. So you basically have to choose what you believe – 
that Snape delayed, or that Sirius, Lupin, Moody, Tonks and 
Shaklebolt delayed. Interestingly no one, not even the most devoted 
Snape fans, ever tried convincing me it's the second possibility.

Dumbledore "peaceful expression" is a different kind of 
interpretation. It's not a situation in which you have to choose 
between two assumptions, one of which is very problematic or totally 
absurd. It's a choice between two assumptions that are, from the 
outset, equally probable, and the only criterion for choosing between 
them is the sentence "Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the 
angle of his arms and legs he might have been sleeping".

> Potioncat: 
> I think many, (very, very many) of us have at one time or another, 
so 
> convinced ourselves of some theory, we've forgotten it wasn't 
proven 
> canon; or we were surprised when JKR took its basis in an 
unexpected 
> direction. It's not a bad idea to go back to canon every now and 
then 
> to make sure we've got it right.
>

Neri:
I fully agree with that, which is why my posts generally have a lot 
of quoted canon in them.


Neri