Dumbledore asking Harry to kill (Was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 149527

Nora:
> But if Dumbledore's statement to Harry that *Harry* must kill is 
> brought into question, as I think it's going to be, I'm not unsure 
> that his hypothetical statement of the same to Snape wouldn't be, 
> too.  After all, consistency is a small virtue, but a virtue 
> nonetheless.

Jen: Wouldn't that be ex-post facto for the tower, though? If JKR is 
going for Dumbledore's beliefs during the year or even in that 
moment on the tower, Harry would have to revisit the tower not once, 
but twice: Once to discover the information he missed in the first 
place, and again to realize his first and second conclusions were 
wrong.  Why not just go for consistency already in the text? 
Dumbledore held a belief which likely wasn't palatable to everyone 
in Potterverse, including perhaps Snape himself, and yet Dumbledore 
didn't abandon his belief when the moment arrived to face the music. 
It's simple, clear, and consistent with Dumbledore's beliefs so far. 

He could be *wrong* and Harry could learn that and move past him and 
the prophecy, but it wouldn't change the tower from the Dumbledore's 
perspective in time. 

Nora:
> Could JKR be retaining our impression of Dumbledore's essential 
> goodness and nobility but deconstructing the facade of Lawgiver
> from on High?  I certainly think she started that in OotP and kept
> the flame very much alive in HBP, when she didn't have to.  It
> doesn't make him a 'bad person', but it does put a lot of
> complication into the usual Wise Old Mentor archetype to have him
> foul up in ways corrected by the younger generation.

Jen: Maybe, I wouldn't rule it out. I think it more likely Harry 
will discover Dumbledore was wrong, and somehow Dumbledore-from-
beyond-the-Veil will rejoice with him in that error. No matter what 
happened on the tower, or what happens with Harry's defeat of 
Voldemort, Dumbledore would much rather murder not be a part of 
anyone's life.

Nora:
> If the denoument is not centered around that principle, after
> we've been explicitly prepared for it, it would undercut it.  That 
> undercutting is a strong possibility, at least from where I'm 
> sitting.  YMMV.  While there are times we've been shown that it's
> a noble thing to die, I can't think of any situation so far where 
> *killing* has been put into the same category.  That may have been 
> the Tower, but it's hardly settled yet.
> 
> -Nora hopes for something nice and elegant above all


Jen: Not settled, no. Noble isn't the word that springs to my mind, 
though. 'Necessary' perhaps, a 'worst-case scenario', 'very 
unfortunate' to paraphrase Dumbledore. Still, if it served a crucial 
purpose in Dumbledore's mind, then I believe he would ask for the 
world. That's where the limit of my mileage is, that Dumbledore saw 
some reason he might benefit Harry or the situation at large by his 
death. If he didn't think that, if he dearly wanted to help Harry 
find and destroy the horcruxes and Snape was saving himself at the 
expense of Harry, then my interest in Snapey will dwindle to 
nothingness and I'll savor the other parts of the story.

I mean, there's *something* in the story JKR is concerned about when 
she mentions she may lose all her readers or have only 6 people 
reading by the end (as if). Maybe it's this, maybe not, but when I 
put myself in her shoes trying to sort out the tower, it *will* be 
divisive if internet fandom is any indication of readership at large 
(or would we be a skewed sample?!?). She gave us fair warning.

Jen, who wants nice and elegant as well, but recognizes the 
utilitarian problem of her nice and elegant looking different from 
Nora's.