Requiescat in Pace, My Dark Phoenix
Talisman
talisman22457 at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 25 11:57:58 UTC 2006
No: HPFGUIDX 151430
Talisman tosses aside her steaming quill, slides a 13 foot scroll of
responses in your direction, and snuggles up to a rather stiff-
looking fellow in singed robes.
zgirnius:
<snip rest, as I'm not really addressing specific details of the
theory>
Talisman:
Hey now, we can't have that. There's too much Devil in those
details to allow them to be swept under the rug.
zgirnius
However, I really find it hard to believe that the man in the Cave
was not Dumbledore.
Talisman:
Hmm. Obviously shock induced bewilderment. Elevate your feet and
stay warm. ; )
zgirnius:
He's an important figure in the story with a particular sort of
relationship to Harry.
Talisman:
Undoubtedly important. Central even. He is the Prime Mover in
Harry's world.
Switched!DD allows him to go on being just that.
We all have our own readings of Dumbledore's relationship with
Harry. I suppose it could be described as *particular.* <g> But,
I'm not at all sure that their distinctive affiliation requires
Dumbledore to go to the Cave.
zgirnius:
And probably the single most beautiful, moving moment in that
relationship occurs during the Cave sequence, when Dumbledore tells
Hary, "I am not worried, Harry, because I am with you." I just can't
quite bring myself to believe that Rowling would write this moment
in for an impostor. >snip< At that point in the story the line as a
line from SNAPE to Harry, just does not have the same impact).
Talisman:
Harry is not yet ready for his moment with Snape qua Snape, but he
will find this interaction quite poignant in retrospect, I assure
you.
Snape, on the other hand, has had the good taste to slip away before
all the maudlin blibbering sets in. ::wink to Koinonia02::
I see, zgirnius, that you are from the DDM camp, so I trust you read
Snape as diametrically opposed to Voldemort (he would *never* wear a
turban; he appears in Fake!Moody's Foe Glass, etc.); and that you
understand the magnanimity of his actions.
After all the things he has suffered in the line of duty, and his
frequent protection of Harry, he is coming to the end of his part in
the struggle. (Though there will be loads of revelation in Book 7)
All his efforts--known and unknown--are now invested in Harry, whose
behavior over the course of the next year will determine whether
Snape's consuming sacrifices will pay off or come to nothing.
Consider how he won't allow Harry to provide even a negligible
amount of blood for entrance tribute: *You are very kind, Harry...[b]
ut your blood is worth more than mine* (HBP 560).
With the hellish cup to his lips, he drinks to *Your good health,
Harry* (570).
And, as they set out to keep Snape's appointment with death, he says
*I am not worried...I am with you* (578).
Impact enough for me.
Having raised the topic of Snape's tireless efforts, permit me to
indulge in a short digression regarding his protection of Harry in
PoA (there is hardly enough volume for a separate post and I have
nowhere else at the moment to stick this, though I'm sure my
opponents will have suggestions....)
Back in 2003 I asserted that Snape initially saved Harry from the
dementors by the lake, leading to a detailed exploration of Time-
Travel in the post: Time, Repetition and the Uber-Dimension:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/79635
Arguments contra included the fact that there was only one Patronus
at the lake and that it had to be Harry's, to which I replied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I unequivocally believe that Harry created the "Prongs" patronus,
which was the one and only patronus seen in the PoA "dementors by
the lake" scene.
I do not think Snape used a patronus there at all. Harry may not
know of any other means to control dementors, but he is hardly
Snape's equal in DADA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To those who missed that argument--and even more to those who didn't
<veg>--I must now point out the supportive evidence from HBP:
*Ron was now struggling to finish a viciously difficult essay for
Snape that Harry and Hermione had already completed. Harry fully
expected to receive low marks on his, because he had disagreed with
Snape on the best way to tackle dementors...* (448).
::Talisman pauses to wipe some of the spattered gore of her enemies
from her breastplate::
zgirnius
And on the other end--why would Dumbledore make such a point of
revealing to Harry that Snape was the Half-Blood Prince (as the man
who looks like Snape does in "Flight of the Prince"?)
Anne:
It's the first lesson in who Snape really is.
Talisman:
Agreed. Or at least *another* step on the trail to truth that
culminates in Book 7.
zgirnius:
The COWARD moment, I will grant you, works. But the final reason I
remain convinced that Snape was Snape and Dumbledore was Dumbledore
in the climactic scene is that DADA curse. Under your scenario,
Snape made a plan with Dumbledore, and it WORKED.
Talisman:
While Dumbledore and Snape may have switched on other occasions,
beyond the Cave & Tower scenes, I did not posit their transposition
throughout HBP. Snape was in the classroom teaching DADA all term.
The Switch stuff was strictly extra-curricular.
Therefore, the Curse has been honored: Snape taught the DADA class,
and did not last more than one year.
Or did you mean something else?
zgrinius:
>snip<
If the Avada Kedavra bothers you, the theory easily modifies
to "Dumbledore lifts Snape off the Tower with a nonverbal spell and
a green flash of light, and then Snape dies shortly thereafter for
breaking his Vow." >snip<
Talisman:
You betcha. (Thus the answer to Jeanette & Sherry's main objection.)
Dumbledore is a whiz with those tractor-beam spells. They've
cushioned Harry from more than one fall. I'm sure things were
carried out in the kindest possible manner.
And, we do know that saying Avada Kedavra won't do the job if you
don't mean it.
I'm evil enough to believe DD could have meant it, i.e. killed if it
were necessary, but clearly, in light of the UV, it wasn't.
houyhnhnm:
Are you saying that the UV can "see" through the disguises? >snip<
The third clause of the Vow required Snape "should it prove
necessary Eif it seems Draco will fail [...] carry out the deed
that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" But Draco does not
seem to be about to fail the /deed that the Dark Lord has ordered/--
namely killing Dumbledore. Rather he is about to fail in the attempt
to kill Snape (as DD!Snape). So it seems to me that the Vow would
not even kick in.
zgrinius:
However, you have a point. Draco is actually wavering in an attempt
to kill Snape, not Dumbledore, though of course he doesn't know
that. On the other hand, the Death Eaters present don't know it
either. It suree SEEMS that Draco is failing to kill Dumbledore, one
of the others even makes a comment to that effect. (Recall
Narcissa's wording of the Vow...)
Talisman:
In light of Draco's two previously failed attempts, I suggest that
the trigger for the third clause of Snape's UV was intentionality.
Neither the cursed opals nor the poisoned mead succeeded in
accomplishing the Dark Lord's deed, yet Snape's heart beat on.
Theoretically then, Draco could have continued sending toxic socks
and potted tentaculas, etc. for the remainder of Dumbledore's
natural life, and could miss the mark every time, without untoward
vow consequences.
However, it's one thing to launch nasties in Dumbledore's general
direction, it's quite another to face up to the reality of the job.
While it's true that, for the reader and those assembled on the
tower, the confrontation between DD!Snape and Draco provided
external confirmation of Draco's failed resolve, I don't think it
mattered whom he was facing.
If Draco had managed to fire an AK at DD!Snape and yet--and for the
sake of vow argument--had been unable to give him so much as a
nosebleed, I don't think Snape would have been forced to act or die.
>From a *failure* perspective, I don't see how that would differ
greatly from the potentially lethal opals and mead being intercepted-
-and survived--by collateral victims.
But, the fact remains that, believing he had a clear shot, he
lowered his wand.
The difference is that at this point Draco comprehends that his
*heart is not really in it,* that *killing is not nearly as easy as
the innocent believe,* and that he is *not a killer* (585-86).
In his own heart, and to the eyes of the world, he was no longer
willing to try, and that, perversely, was the terminal failure.
houyhnhnm:
I really have thought Snape the most likely candidate for a switch
with DD. The actions and speech of the "Dumbledore" in the cave fit
Snape better than either Wormtail or Slughorn. And this:
***************
Terror tore at Harry's heart ....He had to get to Dumbledore and he
had to catch Snape....Somehow the two things were linked....He could
reverse what had happened if he had them both together....
***************
Talisman:
An absolutely lovely catch. Thanks, houyhnhnm.
houyhnhnm:
One objection though. The ruse would have to have been kept up after
death. Hagrid prepared the body for burial, and though he appears to
have gotten along with Snape, I don't think he would have been
sobbing uncontrollably over his death.
Talisman:
As per the Mama Crouch evidence, the corpse of someone who dies
while in a polyjuiced form retains the transformed state.
I would expect the deceased to look just like Dumbledore.
houyhnhnm:
Also, what about the phoenix that appeared to fly from the flames as
DD's tomb sprung into being?
Annemehr:
Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix
rise joyfully into the blue (HBP ch. 30; p. 645)
Yes, it seems like it could be Snape's patronus -- the one that was
too revealing of Snape's character for JKR to divulge. One that's
oh, so similar to Dumbledore's.
Talisman:
Anne and I are in accord. Perhaps I should have elaborated on the
title of my post. It comes from the analogy Rowling draws between
Snape's actions in HBP and Fawkes's Book 2 assistance to Harry in
the Chamber.
*Snape..knelt over Malfoy, drew his wand, and traced it over the
deep wounds Harry's curse had made, muttering an incantation that
sounded almost like a song. ...the flow of blood seemed to
ease...the wounds seemed to be knitting. ... Moaning Myrtle was
still sobbing and wailing overhead* (523).
Instead of Fawkes's song and tears, we have Snape softly singing his
ancient healing charm, while Myrtle provides the tears. Snape is
the Dark Phoenix.
Steven1965aaa:
[raised the issue of the phoenix lament]:
The phoenix song gave succor to those grieving *Dumbledore,* do you
think Dumbledore would have been unmindful of their pain?
Moreover, I think it is indicative of Dumbledore's grief for Snape,
who, I believe, was more Dumbledore's equal than any other, and for
whom he cared deeply. (No, that's not slash.)
Fawkes himself evinces love for those whom Dumbledore loves. Have
you never noticed the little signs of affection he gives Harry?
Then, why shouldn't Fawkes lament for Dumbledore's beloved warrior?
And do you really think Dumbledore would not have contributed to the
ceremony in some fashion?
There is also *Fawkes* evidence of Dumbledore's return in Book 7.
In the July 16, 2005 Cub Reporter interview, Rowling was asked:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround: Who did Fawkes previously belong
to and will he play a vital role in the next book?
JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next
books, which probably gives you a big clue...>snip<
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-
ITVcubreporters.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The part of the quote that I snipped emphasizes Dumbledore's sole
ownership and so underscores the close identity between the two.
However, the main point of interest is her *no comment.* The
question is whether Fawkes will play a vital role in book 7.
Silence is customarily taken as assent, and Rowling seems to think
she's given something away.
If Fawkes is operative in book 7, then Dumbledore's about.
I'm not sure why Rowling answers the question in terms of the books,
plural, i.e. 6 & 7. It may be an inadvertent slur or a typo.
At least some of the assembled children have obviously read HBP:
JKR: *Has anyone finished Half-Blood Prince yet? Good going!*
And, she cheerfully answers other questions from the book:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trisha Mittal for the Hindustan Times India - My question is why is
the Weasleys' clock set at Mortal Peril?
JK Rowling: Mrs Weasley is right, if you don't know what I'm talking
about, the Weasleys have a clock in which each of the 9 hands
represents a member of the family and they point at things like at
work, travelling and so on. Well at the beginning of this book all 9
hands are pointing at mortal peril. Mrs Weasley is right, she hopes
that everyone is now in danger and she is correct. Well if the deaf
eaters had clocks their hands wouldn't point at mortal peril. And
the Weasley are what are called blood traitors; in other words they
are pure blood but don't act that way. They consort and like
muggles. Therefore they are in the firing line, they would not be
among Voldemort's favourite people?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Notice that here we also get *deaf eaters* for Death Eaters, so
there is some question as to accuracy. If you read through the
interview, you'll see other obvious mistakes like that in the
transcript.
But, if she uses *books* intentionaly, what it also says is: I'm not
going to comment on what all that lamenting was about. Which is
another way of saying: it's not what it might appear to be.
Just because I was assessing this interview, I'll add this last
point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cara McKenzie for Radio Forth - Every year since Harry has been to
Hogwarts the defence against the dark arts teacher has left Hogwarts
or died every year. Does that mean that something will stop Snape
from being the defence against the dark arts in book 7?
JK Rowling: Yes. I really can't say more than that. That is because
one of those questions that is a very good question and everyone
would like to know the answer but it gives a lot away. There must
obviously be a new one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
She could have said: If you've finished the book, then you'll know
why. But, she didn't.
This fits very nicely with the idea that readers may conclude that
he can't return because he's a murderer, but it's really because he
is dead.
houyhnhnm:
Then there is Rowling's statement in the LC/Mugglenet interview
that "I can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it,
whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what
will happen when they [Snape and Harry] meet again that I can't."
Talisman:
This seems to be Koinonia02's main concern, as well.
Once Rowling began talking about Snape's role in Book 7, she had no
choice but to refer to him in the ordinary manner.
The question was: Is Snape Evil?
She tried to get off with: *JKR: [Almost laughing] Well, you've read
the book, what do you think?*
But, the interviewers pressed on:*ES: She's trying to make you say
it categorically.*
(Rowling, for her part, was trying to wiggle away.)
The interviewers at least feigned an assumption that her answer
meant yes (the sly dogs):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
MA: Well, there are conspiracy theorists, and there are people who
will claim -
JKR: Cling to some desperate hope [laughter] -
ES: Yes!
MA: Yes!
ES: Like certain shippers we know!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially, Rowling is flippant and joins in the laughter--but after
Emerson's comparison to the H/H shipping debacle, she can be seen to
change her tune.
She is on record as wanting to firmly debunk any further H/H
shipping hopes, so a direct comparison would be quite meaningful.
Yet it is only the interviewers (sly dogs) who jump on this and
force the issue.
Clearly they try to pin her to the correlation that hope for Snape's
goodness is like hope for H/H.
At this point Rowling becomes palpably discomfited. She babbles;
she stammers around; she emphatically backs out of the H/H analogy
net.
She makes a point of clarifying that she doesn't want to quash any
theories. I.e., this is NOT like the H/H matter.
This belies her *cling to hope* snickering; she wants to leave the
door open. A mighty admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously-- Harry-Snape is now as personal, if
not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can't answer that question
because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it
has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that
I can't. And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories
and I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm
evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps she would have done better to leave it at theory
encouragement, but it was a fluid situation and she addressed the
inevitable Snape/Harry showdown in Book 7. Inevitable. We all
expect it, and it will happen, albeit with Snape!DD.
I expect DD to use Harry's raging hatred of Snape as bait (DD's
established M.O.) to draw Harry in his direction and accomplish
necessary events in Book 7.
Yes, Harry will see and confront *Snape,* Rowling would hardly try
to deny that--and their future interaction is why most readers would
care whether he is evil or not. (If he was never to be *seen* again,
the question of his goodness would not be nearly as vital (Or, the
*big, big, big, question* as Melissa calls it.)
Rowling likely put little quotes around the word in her head, but
she's hardly going to wiggle her fingers in the air and say
*quote/unquote Snape.*
Because, as I said, if she is going to address *Snape's* role in
Book 7, at all, even vis-a-vis her inability to confirm or deny
things about him, there is nothing that she can call him but: Snape.
Rowling parses things mighty thin, and when it comes to preserving
her secrets, she's not adverse to misdirection and equivocation.
katssirius:
I like this theory a lot. It is based on complex emotions and an
intelligent plan. The problem I see with it is I do not think JKR
has got it in her. >snip< As you point out Snape has always been the
most interesting character and we could have used the story of his
school days or his time with the Death Eaters.
Talisman:
I certainly wanted more Snape in 6 (Alright, in 1 through 5, too)
and I will be the most disgruntled fan you know if we don't finally
get him in spades for Book 7. Happily, I think he is too critical
to the denouement for her to avoid giving up the goods.
I have my own little bag of quibbles with the probity and/or
execution of some of Rowling's apparent premises. But, thanks to my
iconoclastic (though not subversive, I assure you) reading of the
works, I find a great deal of coherency, and I retain a certain
neurotic optimism that she will pull it all off, yet.
katssirius:
I think DD's picture in the headmaster's office is the one point I
have not seen argued away concerning his death.
Talisman:
The first point is that we know relatively little about the magic
involved. This can lead to a great many assumptions, and errors,
like the PoA patronus rebuttal I discussed, may ensue.
The WW is filled with magical pictures. All of them move, from
trading cards to casual snapshots. In addition to moving, the
head's portraits are expected to speak, though we have yet to see
DD's do so.
I expect it will eventually say any number of interesting things,
but we also have evidence that such wizard *recordings* don't
require death.
First things first.
Beyond our textual experiences with the portraits, which don't
address the magic involved, we have two explanations from Rowling.
One comes from the August 15, 2004 Edinburgh Book Festival--notably
before HBP was released.
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80
Here, the query included the assertion that *all the paintings we
have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people.*
Rowling agreed that this was true, and no doubt it was at the time,
but she never said this was necessary.
She went on to explain how * previous headmasters and headmistresses
leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura,
almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present
occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat
catchphrases, almost. ...If Harry had a portrait of his parents it
would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts,
that would be a much more meaningful interaction, *
Okay, so previous heads have left behind traces that repeat
catchphrases and provide less meaningful interaction than ghosts.
Not really helpful to the question of whether a portrait is indicia
of death.
Somewhat more revealing disclosures came with her F.A.Q. response to
the question of how the erstwhile Prongs managed to insult Snape via
the Marauderfs Map.
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=103
In sum, Rowling says:
*It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as
though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map.*
Ah. A magical recording.
En route to this conclusion, she rattles off some additional ways
*wizards have...of making sure their voices are heard after their
death.*
She tells us to * think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve
in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom
of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts
walking around Hogwarts, the portraits of dead headmasters and
mistresses in Dumbledore's office, not to mention Mrs. Black's
portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other
examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one.*
If, as is implied, the portraits participate in a shared magic with
the other listed examples, then she has just revealed that death is
not required.
Sure, we've seen dead Bertha in the pensive. But, we've seen plenty
of (concurrently) live people there, too: Dumbledore, Snape,
Trelawney, Bella, the Crouches Jr & Sr, Karkaroff, Bagman, Rita,
etc. etc.
How about those prophecy recordings? Trelawney is alive, and yet she
rises up and speaks from the orb.
And, of course, *Lupin* throws insults from the Map, while he
himself is standing in Snape's office, observing the proceedings.
Under the circumstances, I think a portrait could be managed without
DD's death. Possibly even pre-loaded with some pithy advice for
Harry.
What a deal. All of the advantages of death, and none of the
inconvenience.
I think GoF (Goblet Theory, again) provides us with another instance
of a *bogus* portrait: the mermaid in the prefect's bathroom.
I don't think that creature was ever alive.
In the course of time we discover she looks nothing like a real
merperson. Rowling bothers to specifically point this out to us
(497). Why is that do you suppose?
Not that she was *exactly* lying when she affirmed that *all the
(circa 2004) *people* in portraits are dead (my emphasis)
After all, I'm sure she is respectful of the fact that the merpeople
have chosen to be categorized as beasts--or at least non-beings (FB
xiii ).
Koinonia02:
[regarding my assertion that DD may be a metamorphmagus]
My bet is on a link between Dumbledore and Gryffindor. As for the
Black family/metamorphmagus angle, I surely see that making an
appearance again, if it already hasn't happened.
Talisman:
Wherefs the rub? I'll bet Gryffindors can marry Blacks and be
metamorphmagi, too.
Koinonia02:
It would seem possible for the above [post goo] words to come from
Snape. However, could not Dumbledore, the great giver of second
chances, have a spotted past(now no more a DE quote)? >snip< it's
possible at one time in his life he was not exactly clean and hence
>snip< his statements in the cave.
Talisman:
You are unwittingly dealing with the known perpetrator of Guilty!DD,
the theory that launched a thousand hate mails from the *nice*
side. I have no problem tagging DD in flagrante delicto, his sins
improve him (as a character); this just isn't his gig.
Koinonia02:
>snip< The thing is, if you go back and read...it's hard to picture
the Snape in this chapter being anyone but Snape. The anger, the
mention of James once again, the white-hot, whiplike hex(?)against
Harry' face...all these are very much Snape-like. >snip<
Talisman:
There's no point in getting all tarted up if you aren't going to
play the part. In addition to the fact that he has a role to
perform, and can be expected to be at least as good at it as Barty
Jr., Dumbldore's got plenty of reason to be pissed.
Snape has just given everything to the cause; this round of the game
has been bought at a terrible price.
In the face of this tragedy, Snape!DD is headed for the abomination
of Voldemort's gleeful celebrations.
Meanwhile he's got to watch Hagrid's hut go up in flames while
saving Harry from overzealous DE Crucios, shuttling Draco out of the
gates, parrying Harry's attempts at everything from Unforgiveables
to Levicorpus, and listening to Harry's screeching about Snape's
cowardice.
Have you forgotten the Albus of GoF?
*At that moment, Harry fully understood for the first time why
people said Dumbledore was the only wizard Voldemort had ever
feared. The look upon Dumbledore's face as he stared down...[at
Fake!Moody]...was more terrible than Harry could have ever
imagined. ...There was cold fury in every line of the ancient face;
a sense of power radiated from Dumbledore as though he were giving
off burning heat* (679).
Or, how about OoP?
*Directly above them...stood Albus Dumbledore, his wand aloft, his
face white and furious* (805).
I also don't think Dumbledore has unalloyed regard for James. I
assure you, when Dumbledore spits out his disdain for a *pampered
prince,* in OoP, he means James.
You know, the Potter's coddled late-life treasure; the guy who
thought he was all that and would hex you in the hallway to boot;
the guy Dumbledore wanted to make sure Harry didn't turn out like.
Yeah, that one.
As for hexing his peeps, Dumbledore is clearly prepared to do so,
when authenticity requires. Just ask Kingsley-man-that-smarted-
Shacklebolt (OoP 621).
The little cheek-smacking didn't do any damage to Harry, it allowed
Snape!DD to get away without taking any jinxes up the tookus, and it
drove home the need for Mr. DA big-shot to buckle down and master
those nonverbal spells.
Rebecca:
My question is who is Snape in the LV Death Eater World that other
DE's would either respect or fear him? And why would the werewolf
be "cowed"?
Talisman:
He is one BMF; in the best possible way. <g>
houyhnhnm:
Maybe no one died on the tower that night. Maybe Snape was
impersonating Dumbledore, but his death was faked >snip<
Talisman:
:: sigh:: It took me more than two months to work through my denial.
houyhnhnm:
Yes, that's the way I would have it if I could choose. :-)
I don't want Snape to be dead.
Talisman:
Me either, darlin.f
It's probably hard to be a fictionalized necrophiliac girlfriend,
but I'm gonna grit my teeth and do it.
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive