Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word.

[fritter_my_wig]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> A short one from me (for a change) to start the day :-)
> 
> At 08:47 13/06/05 , Eloise wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >I have to say, though, that it does seem very strange that no-one
> >else in the WW ever threw themself in front of someone they wanted 
to
> >save and that the protective power of such a sacrifice hadn't been
> >noted before. I mean, James presumably essentially did the same
> >thing, yet sacrificing himself didn't save Lily.
> 
> The crux for me is the "stand aside" bit. As his attitude towards 
Cedric 
> showed, when Voldy's on the warpath to get an individual, he 
doesn't care 
> about collateral damage. So why the hell didn't he simply blast 
Lily out of 
> existence instead of giving her the *chance* to sacrifice herself? 
JKR is 
> going to have to pull an extremely huge (and hopefully unfluffy) 
rabbit out 
> of her hat to cover that discrepancy without it sounding ridiculous.
> 
> On the general point, however, I doubt that Voldy's ever gone after 
many 
> kids in their parents' presence to give them a chance to sacrifice 
themselves.

So do I. ;-)
What I meant was that if such protection is the result of self-
sacrifice in order to save another, I can't believe that in the whole 
history of the wizarding world it hasn't happened before and been 
noted. It apparently *is* known that saving a wizard's life creates a 
deep bond between the two and the two are arguably closely related 
phenomena.

So actually *giving* her the chance to make such a sacrifice....well 
it's Voldemort and the old Evil Overlord rules again, isn't it?

I could dismiss the "stand aside" bit as something that added a bit 
of dialogue to what otherwise might have been an even shorter scene, 
but his going out of his way to tell Harry that his mother needn't 
have died really does need explanation. 

> 
> <snip>
> 
> >BTW, are we assuming that we are going to *see* behind the door at
> >some point? Because if we do, then we are going to have to see some
> >kind of embodiment of whatever the power is and my betting is that
> >cliche or not, it's going to have something to do with Lily.


> As I implied last time, I consider an objective view of what 
happened that 
> night to be as essential as a return the The Prank (TM) for the 
same 
> reasons I proposed in that thread. JKR has deliberately kept the 
details 
> away from us, and I personally don't spend too much time wondering 
about 
> it: we'll all find out in due course.


Ah, but the wondering is all part of the fun.

> 
> This doesn't mean to say that I've not spent *any* time thinking 
about it, 
> and I am convinced that Snape was there. Whether as a goodie or a 
baddie, I 
> don't know, although I have a suspicion that events at GH are at 
least part 
> of the reason that Dumbledore is so certain of Sevvie's loyalty. 


I've long thought he might have been there, but if he was, then it 
came *after* Dumbledore had already decided to trust him. Though of 
course it could have confirmed that belief.

I like to 
> think that for one reason or another, Snape turned up to repay his 
> life-debt and failed. Which, given his slightly twisted sense of 
his 
> position in the world, only increased his animus towards anyone 
answering 
> to "Potter" as their surname...


Oh yes. Absolutely. He's never forgiven James or Sirius for 
contributing to that failure.

~Eloise
Dashing and not formatting as much as she might. Sorry.