CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 165770

> > 5.    Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about 
> the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose
> himself?
> 
> Carol:
> No. All he would expose is that he's the author of Sectumsempra if 
he
> revealed anything at all, and he was a kid at the time. 

a_svirn:
Well, I would have revealed something of what sort of kid he was. But 
it doesn't seem to be an entirely sufficient reason, I agree. 

> Carol:
It's not his
> fault that Harry used the spell on Draco without knowing what it 
was.
> He could have punctured Harry's reputation with Slughorn by 
revealing
> that those Potions hints were his own, but he chose not to do so. I
> think that he wanted to keep an eye on Harry himself and make sure
> that he stayed well away from Draco. It would have been interesting,
> however, if he'd told Harry on the spot whose Potions book that 
was. I
> think Harry would have been more than willing to surrender his book 
to
> Snape if he knew that it was Snape's. Too bad Snape didn't tell him
> exactly how he knew that Harry was lying about finding that spell 
in a
> library book.

a_svirn:
Too bad, indeed. But he could hardly do that for the sake of Harry's 
reputation. Must have been some other reason. 
> 
> > 6.    Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, 
> the words she actually uses can be at best described as 
> understatements – "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being 
so
> guarded?
> 
> Carol:
> First of all, she's right. The Prince isn't evil, and much of the 
book
> is either genuine Potions improvements resulting from a studious
> teenage boy's research or useful spells like Muffliato or minor 
hexes
> like the toenail hex and Langlock. The hexes and the Bezoar joke do
> demonstrate a slightly nasty sense of humor little different from,
> say, Ron's. (And HBP!Harry reminds me of James, hexing people in the
> hallways. No wonder he thought the HBP might be his dad--
same "nasty"
> sense of humor.) 

a_svirn:
Oh, yes, I quite agree with you here. Perfectly reasonable for him to 
make a connection. 

> Carol:
The only Dark spell or other element in the book that
> we know of is Sectumsempra, and it's the product of a desire for
> revenge not all that different from Harry's or Sirius Black's.

a_svirn:
Well, I agree it bespeaks a desire for revenge, but it hardly the 
same desire that Sirius harboured (or Harry still does). Sirius 
wanted to kill Pettigrew – perfectly understandable desire, if 
illegal. Harry wanted to kill Sirius when he thought him responsible 
for his parents' death. He couldn't bring himself to do it then. 
Perhaps now, when is older and embittered, he can bring himself to 
kill Snape, as he says he will. We don't know. But neither Sirius, 
nor Harry employed their talents to invent a new torturous ways of 
killing. A man who kills his enemy is not necessarily evil, a man who 
impales or skins alive his enemy for his own entertainment is. And a 
young Snape was somewhat inclined in that direction or he wouldn't 
have invented the curse. 


> Carol:
As for
> Hermione's being "guarded," she probably doesn't want to risk his
> anger by reminding him that he used Sectumsempra or by defending the
> teenage Snape. But I hope it's a sign that she's going to look a
> little deeper into Snape's past, maybe finding out things that Harry
> will need to know. Maybe she'll spot the holes in his version of the
> events on the tower as well.

a_svirn:
I don't see how she can, though. She does not know what we do. She 
wasn't a fly on the wall at Spinner's End. (Not that it would have 
helped her to understand Snape *better*, but it would have certainly 
kept her powerful mind occupied for some time). She wasn't present at 
the Tower; didn't see Snape's expression; didn't hear Dumbledore's 
plea. She didn't witness the altercation between Snape and Harry, 
when Snape obviously spared Harry. And I'll bet that Harry didn't 
dwell on those details as he recounted his version of events. She 
also knows – from Harry – that the reason for Dumbledore's trust in 
Snape was the latter's remorse about playing his part in the Potters' 
death. She may or may not be sceptical about this particular 
disclosure, but that's all she has to go by. On the face of it, she 
has absolutely no reason to doubt Snape's betrayal. And no reason to 
be "guarded".


> 
> > 7.    Here is another thing that has been much discussed but 
should
>  to be addressed again. The chapter is about a funeral, but what 
kind
> of funeral is this? A Christian funeral? A secular one? Something
> else? The "little man in black robes" may or may not be a minister 
or
> a priest – Rowling's description of him seems deliberately 
ambivalent.
> It is as though she wants us to wonder about the status of religion 
in
> the Potterverse, and is never going to enlighten us on  the subject.
> Now, why is that?
> 
> and
> 
> > 8.    We are specifically told that this is the first funeral 
Harry
>  has ever attended. Can we judge of the death rites in the 
Potterverse
>  by this ceremony? Since Hagrid wanted to bury Aragog in order give 
> him "a proper send-off", one can assume that for Hagrid, at least, 
> burial is the proper way of disposition of the dead. Do wizards 
> usually bury their dead or do they usually cremate them? 
> 
> Carol:
> To answer the second question first, it appears that wizards are
> usually buried. The Dementors buried what they thought was the body 
of
> Barty Crouch Jr. and his mother had a small, private funeral after
> Crouch Sr. faked her death and now has an empty grave. (I assume it
> contains an empty casket, but maybe it's just a gravestone marking
> nothing.) But there's no evidence of cremation. <snip>

a_svirn:
Oh, great, I forgot about that (and thanks houyhnhn for reminding 
about Odo). Yes, it seems that burial in a conventional way of doing 
things in the WW. Which makes Dumbledore's funeral all the more 
interesting. 

> Carol:
 There's such a thing as a soul in the WW
> and, unless it's sucked by a Dementor, it's immortal. Death is not 
the
> end of all things but "the next great adventure." I don't know where
> all this leads, but I think the existence of God is implied but not
> stated in the books. If JKR lived in another time, she would not 
have
> been so hesitant to make the outlook of the books overtly Christian,
> and fundamentalist Christians would not have so profoundly
> misunderstood them.

a_svirn:
I am not sure that overt Christianity can be reconciled with that 
horcrux business, though. Her take on the immortal soul is very 
unorthodox, and I am almost sure, that the events of the funeral are 
part of her peculiar metaphysics.  

> 
> > 9.    Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the
> onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. 
And
> another thing, did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set  
fire
> to it?
> 
> Carol:
> I think it went exactly as planned, tomb, apparent combustion, and
> all, or Hagrid would have been in hysterics. But who or what caused
> the combustion to happen, I have no idea.

a_svirn:
I may be wrong, but considering the quantity (and quality) of the 
coincidences with the poem, I think it was Fawkes who lit up the fire 
by incinerating himself. 

> 
> > 10.    This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again 
here.
> What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it
> Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better 
word? 
> Or something (-one) else?
> 
> Carol:
> It wasn't Fawkes, who is immortal and will, I think, become Harry's 
in
> DH. My present thought--subject to revision in response on other
> people's ideas--is that the smokelike Phoenix was the spirit of
> Dumbledore taking flight to the other world. (Cf. Saruman's spirit
> trying to enter the Uttermost West, except that DD's spirit is not
> refused entry to heaven or whatever lies beyond the Veil.) I'm 
hoping
> that a similar Phoenix will become Snape's new Patronus.

a_svirn:
But this is the world where a mortal can challenge Death by 
renouncing his mortality. Why not an immortal do the opposite for the 
sake of "love and constancy"? It is exactly what happened in the 
poem, and, after all, another significant absence at the funeral was 
Fawkes. He had sung his farewell song in the previous chapter, but 
where did he go afterwards? My take is – straight to the fire.