On the trivial and the profound.

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 165684

Nikkalmati:
> Then comes part 3. The request to do Draco's task came as a 
surprise, I think everyone agrees. Carol has argued that SS was too 
far along to back out - that the UV won't let you. We know so little 
about the UV that it may be possible that once you start, you can't 
back out. That may be why Mr. Weasley was so upset when he found Ron 
and the Twins just about to cast the spell.

Ceridwen:
We don't know enough about the UV, that's true.  And Arthur's 
reaction can definitely be read this way.  In fact, I might like this 
better, since I'm not at all convinced that the UV kills a person who 
doesn't comply with its stipulations despite what Ron said.  Arthur's 
response there might have been to the particulars of that UV.  Maybe 
the twins wanted Ron to do something "or die trying", a typical sort 
of childhood binding clause, along with "cross my heart and hope to 
die".  Arthur, of course, would have heard the twins proposing the 
wording to Ron.  He must have overheard them talking, or he wouldn't 
have been able to step in.  Or, he might have wanted to frighten 
Young!Ron by saying that it kills you.

I think that the name says what it does.  It's Unbreakable.  You 
cannot break your promise and must go through with it: you are 
compelled by the Vow itself.  I hadn't thought about it quite this 
way despite Carol's suggestion that Snape may not have been able to 
back out at this point.  I guess my brain gets kicked by particular 
phrasing, too.  But, if the Vow is Unbreakable from the moment you 
lock hands, then no, Snape couldn't have backed out, even though 
Narcissa threw in an extra clause.  In my opinion, the only way out 
of the Vow is if the promised outcome happens anyway, that is, if 
Dumbledore dies on his own or from some other source.

Tangent:  What if that wouldn't matter to the Vow?  What if the 
person who made the Vow would die (given that Arthur told Ron a 
universal truth about the UV) if it wasn't his hand (or, in this 
case, Draco's and then Snape's) that did the deed?  What if that was 
what DD was pleading, that Snape look at him and see that the 
conditions of the Vow was about to become null and void, that DD was 
dying and that if this happened, Snape would be dead as well?  This 
doesn't presage an agreement between them to kill DD.  It builds on 
the realities of the moment alone.  But, I've only just thought of 
this.  I may forget about it, or I may refine it.

And as long as I'm mentioning ideas I've had, I think Snape lost 
whatever edge the open-ended wording of the Vow gave him when the DEs 
told him that Draco couldn't perform his task.  "if it seems he might 
fail" in my opinion became binding to the Tower once someone voiced 
to Snape that Draco couldn't do it.

Nikkalmati:
> I personally think SS had grave doubts, but went ahead without 
knowing exactly what the task was. Others think he intended to die 
rather than carry out the task or that he thought he and DD could 
avoid the consequences (but of course they couldn't). If he is DDM 
choosing a course which may lead to his death or DD's, is rational if 
it contributes enough to LV's demise. 

Ceridwen:
I agree with the last sentence.  The overall mission is to get rid of 
Voldemort and his organization, not to preserve the life of 
individual Good Guy combatants.  That would be nice, but in a war, it 
isn't feasable.  I go back and forth on whether Snape knew what 
Draco's task was.  He was very mysterious in Spinner's End, never 
mentioning what the task was.  But, Narcissa, who clearly knew, 
didn't mention it either, and neither did Bellatrix.  So I go back 
and forth between Snape's actions and words, and JKR's necessity to 
hide the information as long as possible from her target audience.

Nikkalmati:
> The UV does not cause SS to kill DD in HBP, unless you think SS's 
motive on the Tower was only self-preservation and not the protection 
of Draco, Harry and the school. If SS had not "killed" DD, DD would 
have died at the hand of Draco or the DE's, and Harry would have died 
to boot (I don't believe in John Wayne!Snape killing all of the DE's 
before they can kill any of the good guys DD, Harry or SS). It is 
perfectly possible to imagine the Tower happening without the UV 
having any part in it at all.

Ceridwen:
I had to read this over a couple of times to get it.  It's early for 
me.  *g*  So, you're saying that, if Snape hadn't taken any UV and 
events on the Tower lined up exactly the same anyway, then Snape 
would still have killed DD because of the situation?  Since I've 
always thought of Snape's role on the Tower in terms of the UV, I'll 
have to think that over.

But I do agree that JohnWayne!Snape is pretty over-the-top.  We've 
all seen movies where the protagonist, and even the antagonist, can 
perform amazing feats like taking down a platoon of Death Eaters 
single-handedly.  In real life, this just doesn't happen all that 
often.  When it does, it's notable because it is so rare.  I can't 
imagine DD wanting even JohnWayne!Snape to take on all of the DEs, 
because there is more of a chance it won't work than that it will.

> Nikkalmati (who thinks SS may not have killed DD afterall)

Ceridwen:
I go back and forth on that one, too.  Did DD die before Snape killed 
him?  Was he beyond the point of help by this time?  One idea I've 
thought about, and I'm not sure who thought of this one first, is 
that Dumbledore was dead all year, and merely reanimated somehow.  I 
think it's creepy, but all of this speculation can certainly give 
rise to Undead!Dumbledore ideas!  The one thing that snags at me for 
an AlreadyDead!Dumbledore, no matter when his death occurred, is that 
the body flew off the tower.  Inanimate objects react like this to 
spells, as we saw at the MoM.  I do think there's more to the Tower.  
I just can't imagine what it will be.

Ceridwen.