I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 167086

Lupinlore wrote:
> Weeellllll...  The big problem is that JKR isn't all that great when it
> comes to consistency, outlines or no outlines.  An even bigger problem
> is that she isn't all that great on consistent characters -- which is
> very much a product of the tyranny of her outlines.
> 
> It is very clear that JKR settled long ago on an ironclad plot that the
> characters are going to follow, will they or nil they, consistency or
> not.  

Neri:
Plot was actually my original argument, before Jen took it in a
slightly different direction. If there's one thing you can't fault in
JKR's writing, it's her ability to deliver Bang. Her books usually
have multiple climax combinations, One-Two and sometimes
One-Two-Three, with no climax ever undermined or turned into an
anticlimax by a following one. The tower scene is one of her most
dramatic climaxes and it is undeniably the current peak of the Snape
plot. Therefore any following reversal must be at least as dramatic,
and it must not undermine the drama of the tower scene. I think a
reversal of the type "well, Snape *did* kill Dumbledore but it doesn't
*really* counts because Dumbledore had asked him to and Unforgivables
are actually OK in certain circumstances" just doesn't cut it
dramatically. Not enough Bang. Given that JKR had plotted all this
even before she published the first book, I just don't see her
planning to end the series that way. 

So, which reversals can actually fit the bill now? Given our situation
with only one book to go there isn't much of a choice. I see two basic
options:

1. Snape didn't do it, ESE!X did (insert X of your choosing,
preferably unexpected). 

2. At the moment of truth, Villain!Snape severs his ties with
Voldemort and saves Harry's life because of Y (insert Y of your
choosing, preferably unexpected).

And then there's always the default option:

3. No reversal at all. 

This last one would be kind of disappointing, but at least it won't
undermine the Bang of the tower scene. Snape can be a villain in Book
7, have a great final confrontation with Harry and die a dramatic
villain's death.

My money is on Option 2, but I don't deny the possibility of 1 and 3.

 
> Pippin:
> So, um, Snape's dramatic pause means he's *not* acting? How do you
> work that out?  There's no  dramatic pause before the killing of 
> Cedric or Sirius. Canon makes it wonderfully clear: killers don't
pause for 
> drama, *actors* do.
> 

Neri:
I don't think canon makes that clear at all. Diary!Tom delivers a darn
speech before calling in the basilisk. Voldemort takes two whole
chapters in the graveyard before trying to kill Harry. Crouch!Moody
rambles for several pages. Even Voldy in the Ministry utters a longer
sentence than "hasta la vista, baby" before trying to AK Harry. What
canon makes wonderfully clear is that killers pause for any amount of
time that JKR requires for the plot and/or dramatic effect at the
particular moment <g>.

As for Snape, I have the feeling that he too would normally like to
take his time taunting his victims (see under Shrieking Shack) but in
this case he was kind of pressed, as he needed to kill Dumbledore
before the Vow decided to kick in, and besides, a speech would reveal
more than JKR was ready to reveal about Snape's motives in HBP, so
Snape had to make do with a dramatic pause. I just think that within
this chapter alone Snape's manner is strongly contrasted with that of
Draco. 


> Pippin:
> Not dramatic enough for what?  Harry's horrible, shocked realization
> that the prejudice he thought he was too noble to feel led him to 
> accuse  an innocent man of murder, and that he himself fed Dumbledore 
> the poison that killed him -- that's plenty dramatic, even without
> any further damage to Snape at Harry's hands, which I'm sure will
> happen before Harry discovers the truth.
> 

Neri:
You are talking about a completely innocent Snape here. I was talking
about Snape who killed Dumbledore because Dumbledore had asked him to.
And even with a completely innocent Snape, in order to maintain
dramatic effect Harry should probably realize Snape is innocent in
less than a two chapters complicated explanation. A pretty effective
way to achieve this would be if ESE!Lupin or another ESE holding Harry
at wand point would say: "Snape?? Killing Dumbledore?? It was *I* who
killed Dumbledore!!!"


> Pippin:
> Oh no, I think Lupin's shock and horror at Dumbledore's death
> are quite genuine. He never meant Dumbledore to die <snip> 

Neri:
Ah well, there goes my Option 1.


> Pippin:
> It's not that Dumbledore botches it, except that the DE raid forced
> him to fake his death at a  time when only Snape's healing skills 
> might have allowed him to survive. 
> 
> He could have dropped the plan to fake his death and asked Snape to 
> attempt to heal him, but that would have thrown out any plans that 
> involved Voldemort believing that Snape was indeed a traitor to 
> Dumbledore. 

Neri:
"Except that"... "might have"... "could have"... "would have"...
Cm'on, this isn't a Bang. It's a Dud. Do I have to break some
furniture with a big paddle to make the point?


Neri