Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Regulus Black

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 147543

> Nora responded: 
> > I thought it was quite BANG-y, but then I suspect I got into the 
> > pattern of reading which I *think* was quite deliberate, and the 
> > one which I would guess (as I can't know this unless it's confirmed 
> > much later) she was out to make, which her mental 'ideal reader' 
> > would catch onto.  We get Spinner's End, with all these 
> > explanations which seem to point to ESE!, but we the readers know 
> > better than that, right?  And there's Harry, continuing to doubt 
> > and have suspicions, but he's just biased and unfair.  After all, 
> > Dumbledore believes in Snape and we believe in Dumbledore because 
> > he's the epitome of goodness and is wiser than us and knows more.
> > 
> > And then Snape ups and kills him.  And we-the-readers are left 
> > either to go "Wow, that was totally BANGy", or to start spinning 
> > more explanations as to why it wasn't actually a genuine BANG (it 
> > wasn't an AK curse, they had a plan, Dumbledore isn't actually 
> > dead, etc.).
> 

Pippin:
It  was a bang for me, though I am DDM!Snape through and through. 
Although I'm not clear on who Nora thinks JKR's ideal reader is -- if it's
someone who's accepting Harry's evaluation of events without much
analysis, Dumbledore's death would be bangy because it never occurred to
Harry that Dumbledore might die, much less be murdered. It certainly
wouldn't be bangy because Snape dunnit. Harry has considered Snape
capable of murder ever since the first Quidditch match way back when.

I was stunned, myself, because when I read the books the first time,
it doesn't take me long to forget all about theories and get caught
up in Harry's POV.  I think it was maybe an hour or two  after
finishing the book  that I said to myself, wait a minute, that was the
"It's going to look like Snape betrayed Dumbledore" scene that we've
been predicting all along. There must be a clue" and then I thought I
remembered something about blood on Dumbledore's body. 

I think my hands were actually shaking as I opened the book again, 
and there it was:  "wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with his 
own sleeve." That trickle of blood needs to be accounted for, IMO: it's
there for a reason. It's the ESE/OfH!Snaper's who have to invent 
meta reasons for it to exist or force events to fit the facts, while fake 
deaths, spell words that have no effect, non-verbal spells, and 
Dumbledore's ingestion of an unhealthy drink, though they sound 
"outlandish" are all established canon and perfectly well-accounted for. 
I didn't have to work super hard to remember them. I do have a good 
memory for detail, but these are all things that are not only mentioned 
but mentioned repeatedly. 

The only thing I had to "research"  was whether Dumbledore had the 
symptoms of poisoning (as he obviously does) and whether that 
could cause convulsions (it can). 

There is, then,  nothing in canon that death by poisoning cannot 
account for, which can't be said of death by AK or falling from the tower. 
Dumbledore has a full beard, as we've been told many times. Have you 
ever tried to wipe dried blood off someone's hair? Doesn't work. Yet 
there was plenty of time for a trickle of blood  to dry.

I don't think there was a specific detailed plan, but I do think DD
and Snape discussed at length the possible circumstances under
which Snape might be forced to fulfill his vow, and what the
alternatives might be. I also think Snape had promised to obey such
instructions as "leave me and save yourself." We know that DD
did discuss something with Snape and that he was capable of 
giving such instructions. 

Harry's demonization of Snape *can't* be right. Even Voldemort, who
has literally demonized himself, is not the way he is because he's
got "bad character" whatever that is. His evil has natural causes
(in the context of the WW). It's what he does, not what he is.


> Siriusly Snapey Susan, not a St. Snaper but convinced her DDM!Snape 
> reading makes sense, too.

Pippin:
I don't think Snape is a saint either, but I resist the demonization
argument.  I think Snape believes, deep down, that children must be 
trained with cruelty -- it wasn't an uncommon belief in the past, and 
Snape was probably raised with it. IMO, it makes him a poorer teacher 
and a "deeply horrible person." It doesn't make him a murderer, 
any more  than all the people in the past who acted on such beliefs
were murderers.

It's interesting that the context of that quote was how much JKR
enjoys writing about Snape. C.S. Lewis said that his devils, who
were of course demonic, weren't much fun to write.

Pippin