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

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 141910

> Julie:
> Oddly, I think it's just the opposite ;-)
>  
> Starting with the "missing 5 hours," it is there as canon if you 
do  the
> math, in the same way that several other math-based inconsistencies
> are there (like Bill and Charlie's ages). 

Neri:
Except that the Bill and Charlie's ages inconsistency is of no 
importance to the plot, while the missing 5 hrs are smack in the 
middle of the most action-packed climax of the series, which takes 
less than 12 hours whole.

In addition, the Bill and Charlie's ages inconsistency is between two 
conflicting timelines implied by the plot, but here we only have one 
canonical and well-established timeline, and the inconsistency is 
only with Dumbledore's very vague and hole-riddled explanations that 
everybody acted "at once". Only if everybody acted at once, how come 
Harry is having a public collapse, breaks into Umbridge's office, 
reports a mind attack by Voldemort, taken at wand point to the 
Forbidden Forest, closely saved from a herd of rampaging centaurs by 
a rampaging giant, takes a flight all the way from Scotland to London 
on invisible horses, enters a breached and deserted Ministry, tours 
the wonders of the Department of Mystery and has a chat with a bunch 
of Death Eaters, and he still beats the Order to the mark? Calling 
this a "math-based inconsistency" is a bit of an understatement.

> Julie:
> But within canon there is
> NO later reference to validate any plot significance. Dumbledore 
> never brings it up, no one ever does, 

Neri:
This isn't accurate. The question of who is responsible for Sirius' 
death is certainly discussed. Harry brings it up immediately and 
Dumbledore nobly shoulders it all himself while avoiding a satisfying 
recount of the Order's point of view.  

> Julie:
> not then and not later (a later
> possibility being one of the Order--say McGonagall--commenting
> after Snape has killed Dumbledore, "I always wondered why it took
> Snape so long to summon the Order to the Department of Mysteries.
> He must have done it on purpose, to help Voldemort get to Harry!" or
> some such.) 

Neri:
As I wrote here before, that would have been a bit cumbersome writing 
for JKR, because it isn't easy to explain the timeline issue in a 
single sentence, or even in a single paragraph, and it was also 
slightly redundant anyway, seeing that Snape had just stunned a 
teacher, AKed the headmaster and ran away with a bunch of DEs.

> Julie:
> Neither does Snape mention it at a time he might be
> expected to, during his self-defense speech to Bellatrix ("I also 
> delayed the Order's arrival at the Department of Mysteries. It's not
> my fault you and the others couldn't do your part before the Order 
> arrived"). 

Neri:
It wouldn't be good politic for Snape to mention it at that point, 
because it would be tantamount to admitting that he *did* warn the 
Order in the end, and Bella would immediately accuse him of failing 
the operation. However, Snape does claim a part in getting rid of 
Black.

> Ceridwen:
> In Spinner's End, page 29 US, Bellatrix seems to think the Order 
showed 
> up much too soon:
> "They were joined, as you very well know, by half of the Order 
before 
> long!"  snarled Bellatrix.
> 
> Snape doesn't say anything to this, as Bellatrix moves on to why he 
> doesn't reveal the location of Order headquarters, and it's just 
left 
> lying in the dust.  'Before long' indicates something less than 
five 
> hours, to me.

Neri:
Bellatrix has a good personal reason to shorten the time she and nine 
other DEs couldn't beat six unqualified teenagers. In addition, it 
seems Bellatrix only refers to the time since the DEs surprised Harry 
in the DoM, not to the flight from Scotland and the adventures in the 
Forbidden Forest (I'm not sure she even knows about this part).

> Julie:
> Given that lack of evidence of any deliberate  delay on the
> part of Snape, the most *likely* conclusion is that the 
inconsistency 
> was unintentional, a simple maths error on the part of JKR. Not the
> only conclusion, mind you, but the most likely conclusion. 
> 

Neri:
A possible conclusion – yes, although as I wrote it would amount to a 
BIG plotting hole, not a "simple math error".  The most likely? This 
is for everybody to decide.

What I find interesting here is that JKR invested considerable effort 
in Snape's controversial involvement in the OotP climax. She could 
have easily avoided having Umbridge invite him to her office at all, 
therefore taking any responsibility from of his shoulders and 
supplying a very satisfying explanation why it took the Order several 
hours to respond. Yet JKR insisted on shoving him into the middle of 
this plot, telling us he understood Harry was under a mind attack by 
Voldemort, and then she had Dumbledore covering up for him in a 
rather unsatisfying manner, all this while she knew of her plans for 
Snape in HBP. It was very bad plotting by her if she didn't consider 
the elementary timeline of Snape's involvement.

> Julie: 
> When it comes to Dumbledore's expression, you're right that canon
> simply states that he's looks like he's sleeping. But canon also  
adds
> that Harry straightens Dumbledore's glasses and contemplates his 
> face. When someone looks like they're sleeping, it generally implies
> a peaceful or composed expression (and looking years younger, as
> the face is relaxed, with worry lines erased). 

Neri:
But Harry also notes Dumbledore face look "old", which by your logic 
would imply worry lines, which would imply a not peaceful expression.

> Julie:
>It doesn't *have* to  mean
> that, but it is by far the most common interpretation.

Neri:
There's also a subtle difference between "he looks like he's 
sleeping" and "he might have been sleeping", which is the canon 
version. For me "he might have been sleeping" seems to mean: "from 
Dumbledore's face alone you couldn't be sure he's dead". I think this 
is an equally possible interpretation as a "peaceful expression". 

> Julie:
> And  if Harry saw
> something in Dumbledore's face to indicate less than that peaceful 
or
> composed expression, he certainly would have made note of it. Ergo,
> it's a fairly straightforward deduction that Dumbledore in death did
> appear quite peaceful. 
> 

Neri:
Isn't this argument slightly circular? You interpret the description 
to imply a peaceful expression, and therefore you conclude that if 
Harry saw anything less than peaceful expression, he would have made 
note of it. Since he didn't note it, it proves it was a peaceful 
expression. I'm not a logician but this seems faulty somehow. 

Here's an alternative argument: when Harry sees Dumbledore's body, he 
already thinks Dumbledore is dead (this is canon), although he would 
certainly be glad to be proved wrong on this. Wouldn't he therefore 
make note of anything that would indicate less than dead? The 
strongest such thing he notes is that Dumbledore's face "might have 
been sleeping". If there were also a peaceful expression, surely 
Harry would have made explicit note of it?

> Julie:
> The assumption comes more in theorizing *why* he looks  peaceful,
> whether it's simply because his death didn't hurt/released his 
pain, or 
> because he died content that he'd accomplished his objectives and
> was satisfied with his life and manner of death. 

Neri:
Theorizing *why* he looks peaceful depends not only on the assumption 
that he *does* look peaceful, but also on the assumption that his not-
explicitly-mentioned expression is relevant for the plot at all. Not 
that this should stop anybody from theorizing, of course, but to be 
fair to the opposing theories I like to be clear about the 
assumptions in each theory.


Neri