Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore

[susanmcgee48176]

No: HPFGUIDX 156945

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
>
> <hickengruendler@> wrote:
> >
> Salman Rushdie: Dumbledore himself - Dumbledore himself had always
> vouched for him. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is a villian 
and
> Dumbledore's killer. We cannot, or don't want to believe this. 
(Crowd
> laughs) Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy, 
(crowd
> applauds) from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead
> and that the death is a ruse cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape 
to
> put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry and Voldemort come 
face
> to face, (crowd laughs) Harry may have more allies than he or
> Voldemort suspects. So, is Snape good or bad? (Crowd laughs, 
applauds
> and screams) In our opinion, everything follows from it.
> 
> JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right. But I
> see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore
> is definitely dead.
> 
> [more followes about grief management] 
> *************************************************************
> 
> There are two significant differences between this transcript and 
the
> previous transcript we discussed here, and IMO both these 
differences
> confirm my view that Salman Rushdie was making an if/then statement.
> Firstly, he says: "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good
> guy, *from which it follows that* Dumbledore can't really be dead" 
(I
> stress the difference from the first transcript).  It is obvious 
that
> Dumbledore being alive, in Rushdie's theory, follows from Snape 
being
> good. It is not an AND statement "Snape is good AND Dumbledore can't
> be dead". It is not even a list of things that are not necessarily
> connected: "1) Snape is good, 2) Dumbledore can't be dead, 3)...". 
It
> is clearly "IF Snape is good THEN Dumbledore can't be dead".
> 
> *****************

Interesting.

I drew the opposite conclusion from this transcript.

Rushdie says that if Snape is still a good guy Dumbledore can't 
really be dead.

When JKR says she agrees with his opinion, BUT Dumbledore is DEAD,
I think well, yes..

Snape is a good guy. Dumbledore was dying, and he told Snape to kill 
him. (I know I'm not the only one who espouses this theory). What 
could ingratiate Snape MORE with Voldemort AND his Death Eaters than 
Snape killing Dumbledore?

IF Dumbledore WAS already dying, then why not use his own death to 
establish Snape as a real DE. Then Snape would be in a position to 
help Harry in the Last Battle. (Another scenario is that Snape really 
is a DeathEater but he repents at the last minute, saves Harry and is 
redeemed. You never can tell with double agents).

Evidence that Dumbledore was dying and WANTED to die on that tower -- 
well, Prof. Dumbledore did not have to immobilize Harry when Draco 
appeared. Harry could certainly have given Draco a run for his money, 
and might even have been able to cause enough ruckus, given 
Dumbledore a wand, and prevented DD from dying....

Also, WHERE WAS FAWKES? In every other situation where Dumbledore was 
in trouble (Ministry of Magic, ruckus when Fudge tried to take him in 
DD's office), Fawkes shows up.... More evidence that DD wanted to die 
in such a way to establish Snape as a legitimate DE.

Susan

Want to join Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40? Email me at 
SusanGSMcGee at aol.com