Dumbledore the Godfather

[anne_t_squires]

No: HPFGUIDX 173835


> Eggplant wrote:
> I don't see where Dumbledore told Harry that at Kings Cross he
> expected Harry to live. He told Harry that he didn't die because
> Voldemort had his blood and he was still alive, and Voldemort was
> still alive because the snake was still alive. 

<snip>

Anne Squires:

Voldemort became mortal or rather vulnerable to death when Nagini was
killed.  However, the destruction of Nagini did not kill Voldemort. 
It merely meant he could be killed.  Let's suppose the snake had been
destroyed before Harry entered the woods.  If Harry had entered the
woods after Nagini's destruction and faced Voldemort unarmed the exact
same result would have taken place.  Harry would not have died because
LV would not have been dead.  Destroying the seven Horcruxes did not
kill LV because there was still another bit of soul left in LV.  LV's
soul had been divided into eighths, not sevenths.  Harry would be
alive until somebody killed LV; but, as I said, killing/destroying the
seventh Horcrux in and of itself does not accomplish LV's death.

Eggplant:
Dumbledore told Snape
> that he expected Harry to destroy the snake before he confronted
> Voldemort for the last time and he expected Harry to die. 

Anne Squires:

I don't think he wanted Snape (or Harry for that matter) to know that
Harry would not have to die.  If Harry didn't believe that he was
going to his death then LV would have smelled a rat and would not have
acted as he needed to.  DD misled Snape so that Harry, in turn, would
be misled, imho, of course.


Eggplant:
Seems to me
> a flesh and blood Dumbledore would have more incentive to tell the
> truth to Snape than a ethereal Dumbledore would have to tell the truth
> to Harry; we have already seen examples of ghosts that are ashamed of
> themselves and want Harry to think well of them. I can't think of any
> reason Dumbledore would lie to Snape about that, I can think of a
> reason Dumbledore, even at the very end, would be let us say,
> economical with the truth. After 7 books we have learned that even
> when Dumbledore tells the truth to Harry it is never the whole truth.
> 
> And did you notice how many times when Harry asked a question
> Dumbledore would tell him that he already knew, and sure enough he
> did! Much of the information in that chapter came from Harry not
> Dumbledore, and perhaps all of it did. I think JKR is giving us
> permission (if we want to) to interpret it to mean Harry (and
> Voldemort) were just knocked out and Harry's subconscious was putting
> the last peaces of the puzzle together. 

Anne Squires:

That's an interesting reading of the King's Cross chapter.  However,
as I said, I think DD lied to Snape and in the KC experience DD was
not lying.  Also, I didn't see any indication that LV had been knocked
out.  He AKed Harry.  In that act he destroyed the soul bit in Harry
(or at least he split if off from Harry).  LV wasn't knocked out as
well.  Remember, when Neville destroyed the seventh Horcrux that
didn't destroy LV.   LV could have survived with one eighth of his
soul.  Destroying the Horcruxes only made LV mortal, destroying the
Horcruxes did not kill off LV.  If he and Harry had not dueled he
could have escaped to make even more Horcruxes.

Anne Squires
>