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

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 167096


> 
> 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. 
> 

Julie:
I think you underestimate JKR. First, we don't even know if
the AK killed Dumbledore. It certainly appears so, but it could
be that Snape used another spell to kill Dumbledore while faking
the AK (just speaking it means nothing, IMO, unless the intent
is there and the power is deliberately channelled toward that 
end). Or he used another spell to send Dumbledore over the Tower
while faking the AK, and Dumbledore died on the ground. Faking
an AK is not out of the realm of possibility by any means, and
we know JKR introduces new spells and concepts for a reason, 
just as she introduced nonverbal spells in HBP. Not so we can
see Harry mostly fail at them (up to this point anyway) but so
we have the concept in mind when it is revealed in DH that 
Snape faked the AK and delivered a totally different spell 
nonverbally.

That is one possibility anyway. Tie it in with Harry feeding
Dumbledore the poison in the cave. We don't know yet the level
of damage that poison did to Dumbledore. Was it fatal? Was it
treatable within a certain period of time (hence his insistence
Harry go fetch Snape), but at some point became untreatable?
Did it undo whatever Snape did to save Dumbledore from the 
Ring Horcrux curse? Could it have turned Dumbledore into an
Inferi, or in some other way interfered with his ability to die 
naturally and move beyond the veil? Did Snape finishing off
Dumbledore save him from a fate worse than death? Did it 
also keep Harry from being the actual "killer" (as the one
who fed Dumbledore the poison in the first place against all
his own instincts)? 

Again, this is all a bunch of *possible* conjectures from 
what we observed on the Tower, but the key word is possible.
And that's only scratching the surface. I have no doubt JKR
can think of 50 more ways to reinterpret the events on the
Tower in a manner that will be both bangy and logically 
workable. Certainly she is not constrained by the lack 
of full knowledge about the characters and their real 
motivations as we are!

Julie, still deeply suspicious of Snape's AK that didn't
have the same drop-dead-on-the-spot-with-eyes-wide-open
effect of every other AK we've seen.