Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 155164

> Pippin:
> > My alternative explanation, in one line:
> > Dumbledore died of the poison shortly before Harry found him. 
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> So you mean that instead of AKing Dumbledore on the spot, Snape just
> blasted him alive of a high tower and left him to die a long and
> painful death at the bottom? I'm not sure Snape is any better off in
> your version. Dumbledore certainly isn't.
> 
Pippin:
So you assume that Dumbledore's instruction to 'leave me and save
yourself'  if so ordered has no narrative purpose? We don't know why
Dumbledore thought he would be better off if such an order were
obeyed, we don't know if he ever gave such an order to Snape, but 
we do know that he was capable of giving the order, and that he 
anticipated a need. Snape is better off if his soul is not torn 
with murder, surely. 

> 
> > Pippin:
> > The only assumption required is that Snape didn't kill him. Whether
> > that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view. <g>
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> We're not talking here "reasonable" in the sense of Snape's morality,
> but in the sense of the magical mechanics involved. Are you saying
> that Snape used an AK that was just strong enough to produce a jet of
> green light, blast Dumbledore several meters in the air, but still not
> kill him and not even knock him out? Sounds like a one big assumption
> to me, and I'm not familiar with any canon that AK can do such a thing. 
> 

Pippin:
It is not an assumption that a blast of green light can be produced by
other spells than AK, or that uttering the words Avada Kedavra 
won't produce a killing curse without a great deal of magical power 
behind it. Nothing vague there.

It's also not an assumption that a nonverbal spell can move people.
I believe there are several instances of this in the graveyard, though
I haven't got my book with me to check.

You either have to assume that the AK knocked Dumbledore up
and backwards, for which we have no other examples in canon, or
that something else did it, for which examples are numerous. 
 

Neri:
> In addition, Harry was released from Dumbledore's body-bind charm,
> suggesting Dumbledore was knocked out at the very least. 

Pippin:
 Harry first thinks that he needed to get Dumbledore and Snape together
and later that Dumbledore died when the spell was released, so
he got it  wrong one way or another. The only question is which time.

Canon for Dumbledore's  being conscious: after the fall, the locket has 
apparently been dislodged from DD's pocket, yet DD's 
glasses are only askew. Weird, if both are the results of the fall.

 
> > Pippin:
> > There is no hypothesis about the operation of the UV that does
> > not require assumptions, so I set that aside.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Convenient, but not all assumptions were created equal. The most
> straightforward assumption in the case of the UV is that Snape would
> die if he doesn't keep his Vow to carry out Dumbledore's assassination
> instead of Draco. I call it the most straightforward in the sense that
> if JKR takes this route, she won't have to supply any further
> explanations of this issue in Book 7. Any more complicated assumptions
> require further elaboration of the UV mechanism, by both the theorist
> and JKR herself. 

Pippin:
She has to explain why Draco's failures with the necklace and the
mead didn't trigger the UV. Any attempt by us to anticipate
the explanation calls for an assumption about how it works.

Pippin