X-post: *When* did Dumbledore die?

[nrenka]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" 
<eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:

> Eloise:
> 
> Your theory undoubtedly makes sense, but I don't want JKR to provide 
> that kind of get-out for Snape. Obviously I hope there will be one, 
> but one that involves mitigation for his actually having killed 
> Dumbledore, rather than one that makes me feel that I've been cheated.

While I can see various get-outs for Snape from an actual killing (but 
it's not my preferred option, but as if that matters in the long run), 
I agree with the fundamental objection.  As ingenious as Pippin's 
explanation is, I want to ask: why?  Why is it so important that 
Dumbledore have not died from Snape's AK?  Is all this explanation 
necessary to keep him clean and pristine--what purpose does this serve 
in the story?

I suppose it means a different type of emotional ringer for Harry, but 
it seems (to repeat myself) to defang the pathos and intensity and the 
BANG of the ending of the book.

-Nora further fends off the very persistent dog, who needs a bath, too