The curious incident of the Felix Felicis in the nighttime

[bluesqueak]

Pip Squeaked:
> > In which case Dumbledore's death-by-Snape is not something Ron, 
> > Hermione or Ginny should prevent. Somehow,the Felix potion seems 
> > to be trying to stop them doing actions which would prevent it. 
> > Not just once, either.
> 
Nora replies:
> I still can't make the jump here.  There's a massive difference 
> between the Felix causing actions that are lucky for 
> Ron/Hermione/Ginny, and these actions *ultimately* resulting in 
> something good/positive/lucky/whatever.  To argue the latter 
> stretches the continuity into something like a single line of 
> dominos being toppled by one being tipped over, as opposed to 
> something with multiple lines of influence feeding in.
> 

Pip!Squeaks:
I have to admit, Nora, I don't get what 'jump' is required. 
Dumbledore dies within the timeline of Felix being in operation. 
Therefore, either Dumbledore's death is a lucky result for the 
subjects within that timeline (since it partly results from the 
actions of the subjects under Felix's influence), or the actions 
which indirectly resulted in Dumbledore's death were immediately 
lucky for the subjects (in that case, Dumbledore's death is an 
unforseen side-effect).

Is there any result of Dumbledore's death that can be seen within 
the operation period? Yup. Snape, as a result of DD's death, is able 
to take the DE's out of Hogwarts. OK, that's immediately good for 
Ron, Ginny and Hermione.

However, the DE's would never have *got* into Hogwarts in the first 
place if it hadn't been for Ron and Ginny (under the influence). I 
honestly can't see how letting a group of ravening Death Eaters (one 
of whom is very fond of kiddies for lunch) into the building 
is 'lucky'. At all.

So the action which (indirectly) leads to Dumbledore's death is not 
lucky. It's not at all lucky, in fact. Ron and Ginny have to 
unluckily be seen by Draco, then Draco has to unluckily use his 
Peruvian Darkness powder, and then Ron and Ginny have to unluckily 
not have been told by Fred and George what the counter-spell is. 
Then the DE's have to unluckily get past them in the darkness, then 
the darkness unluckily has to last until they've all gone.

Nora:
> Why I can't make the jump is that this still reeks of   
> determinism. Or even more, a disturbingly Panglossian approach to 
> the entire set of events.  :)  I suppose that can be made to fit 
> thematically, but I wouldn't bet much on it.

You'll have to take that up with the author, because I would point 
out that JKR did not need to have Ron, Ginny and Hermione fed Felix 
Felicis. She could have had Slughorn give a three hour bottle as 
prize, or have Harry need to take it all himself. She managed to 
find a way to have both Neville and Bill injured but surving - do 
you think she couldn't have managed that with Ron, Hermione and 
Ginny? 

Instead, she deliberately chooses to write a scenario in which three 
people are *supposed* to be lucky - but are apparently 
simultaneously hit by the most appalling bad luck.

And the apparent bad luck results in both Snape and Dumbledore 
reaching the Tower...


*******************************************************************

> > Pip!Squeaks:
> > 
> > Hey, you're talking to the originator of the MAGIC DISHWASHER 
> > theory here. I've been told that I extend my chains of reasoning 
> > until they stretch tightrope-like across a giant chasm. 
> > 
> > Then I tap dance along them, twirling my umbrella {vbg}.
> 
Nora writes:
> We'll still have to wait, I suspect, but being the devotee of 
> Faith that I am, I haven't seen too much to support the sheer 
> factual assertions of the DISHWASHER in the past two books.  We 
> all might take a lesson in assuming that the obvious is not what's 
> going to happen from the shippers, hmmm?
> 
> BANGs in plain sight rather than baroque theorization, perhaps?


Pip!Squeaks:
Looking back at my original baroque theorisation, way back in the 
wilds of 2002 (before we'd even heard about the Order of the 
Phoenix):

I quaintly suggested that the DE war was based on a terrorist war, 
with undercover spies playing a major part. 

Well, Snape's certainly an undercover spy, playing a major part. And 
from the latest interview: "what Voldemort does, in many senses, is 
terrorism, and that was quite clear in my mind before 9/11 happened."

So, check that one off. And I suggested Snape was a good actor; now 
canon. I suggested Dumbledore might use 'need to know', and we found 
that one out in OOP. OK, that's now canon. 

I seem to have badly underestimated Voldemort's gullibility {grins 
cheerfully}, but judging by HBP, Voldemort might be a 
symbolic/allegoric character rather than a real characterisation.

I suggested that Dumbledore and Snape deliberately let Pettigrew 
escape. That one's still 'unproven', but odd how Pettigrew is now in 
Snape's own house...

I suggested that Snape should have been able to stop the thirteen 
year old Harry at any point in the Shack - also still unproven. But 
note how Snape can easily block every single spell of the older and 
wiser Harry during Snape's flight from Hogwarts. 

The pre-planned potion idea (which came along after the original 
post) may well be a bust, I'm afraid, since Snape specifically 
refutes advanced knowledge that Voldy was going to use Harry's blood 
in his resurrection potion. There is, however, a possibility still 
remaining that it may turn out to be a good guess - because Snape 
says that in his Chapter 2 speech to Cissy and Bella, and might be 
lying through his teeth. Certainly he claims to have thought Voldy 
dead, which is a bit odd when neither Hagrid or Dumbledore thought 
that...

But if it's a bust, it's a bust, and I'll have to join Pippin in 
having the honour of JKR taking the trouble to directly refute one 
of my theories {evil grin}.

As for Dumbledore not establishing Sirius's innocence as long as 
Sirius could take Harry away from his protection at the Dursleys - 
did you notice in HBP that Sirius's innocence was immediately 
established after the fight at the Ministry? 

After he was dead.

So, the DISHWASHER. For a theory first set forth in 2002, long 
before OOP and HBP, I'm quite satisfied. Certainly I seem to have 
picked up on a lot of JKR's backstory quite successfully.

The big question of course, is whether Snape's hatred of Harry is 
genuine. Who is he really working for? Has he always been trying to 
protect Harry, whilst giving Legilimens!Voldemort plenty of mental 
pictures of how Snape *hates* that Potter boy? 

Or is he a true double agent, plotting Harry's downfall whilst 
pretending to be an agent for Dumbledore? 

The question of what was really going on in the Shrieking Shack 
(which was the subject of the original DISHWASHER post, then called 
the Spying Game) can't be answered until we know that. Book Seven 
awaits.

Two things about Book Six really made this old MDDT member giggle 
hysterically, though. One was the final canon proof of Oscar Winner!
Snape. The other was finding out, after being told several times 
that the books were called 'Harry Potter and...', not 'Severus Snape 
and...' that the Half Blood Prince was Snape. 

It's about Harry and Snape, you know. This series really *is* all 
about Harry and Snape. ;-)

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape.