This shall be Salman Rushdies words (Spoiler????)!?

[kibakianakaya]

No: HPFGUIDX 156556


> Neri:
> I read it like this: Rushdie's opinion is that if Snape is good,
> then what happened on the tower was a ruse and Dumbledore can't
> really be dead. JKR says his opinion is right (that is, that
> Snape being good would imply that Dumbledore is alive) but
> unfortunately, Dumbledore is definitely dead.
>
> JKR obviously isn't saying that Rushdie's *theory* is right.
> Rushdie's theory the way he presented it includes Dumbledore
> being alive, and JKR nixed that most explicitly.
>
> So the only question is, does Rushdie's opinion also imply that
> if Dumbledore *isn't* alive, then Snape must be bad? I'd say the
> way he presented it certainly suggests so, but he didn't state
> it explicitly, and therefore the DDM!Snapers are still left, as
> always, with some vague shade of hope.


Lilygale here:  I basically agree with Neri's analysis. The key
question is "Does Rushdie's opinion also imply that if DD isn't
alive, then Snape must be bad."  As Neri points out, there may be
a loophole whereby Dumbledore is indeed dead while Snape is DDM.

I believe the loophole is the Dumbledore was dying even before he
reached the tower.  He was dying from the combined effects of the
Green Potion and the Horcrux injury to his hand.  He and Snape had
agreed that it was likely that Dumbledore would not last out the
year.  This all goes back to the brilliant stoppered-death theory,
which briefly says that Snape delayed Dumbledore's death for
entirety of Harry's sixth year, but could not prevent that death
entirely.

So, on the tower, Dumbledore asks or (more likely) reminds Snape
through Legilimency to maintain his cover.  As had been discussed
many times here and in other forums, Snape could have appeared to,
but did not truly, cast the AK.  Dumbledore dies from other causes
but is truly dead by the time he hits the ground.

Lilygale