A Simpler Scenario

[nkafkafi]

> > Neri:
> > 1) Why did Snape make the UV in the first place?

> Pippin:
> I suppose you want a simple explanation of that, too? There's
> no pleasing some people <g> 

Neri:
Actually I already have a simple explanation for that. It can be told
in a single sentence: "Snape was in love with Narcissa ever since they
were at Hogwarts together." But I wanted to know if you had another
simple explanation.

> Pippin:
I think
> the simplest explanation is that Snape was trapped by his
> claim to know of the Plan. He didn't know what it was,
> except that it involved Draco and was likely to be dangerous,
> until he and Narcissa exchanged that long look, after he'd
> claimed to know of it. Only then does she risk a long look
> into his eyes. I think she was using occlumency to keep it
> from him until then.
>
> Narcissa  was  desperate. If Snape refused to take the vow, she 
> might have gone to Voldemort anyway and the Dark Lord would 
> surely have learned of Snape's claim to know the plan. Or
> she might have taken Draco and made a doomed attempt to flee 
> without the Order's help.
> 

Neri:
That's already seven sentences and still doesn't sound very convincing
to me. The risks you mention exist, but they still seem better odds
than the sure death of either Snape or Dumbledore. Besides, Snape says
he knows about the plan in front of *Bella*, who is "enraged" about it
and is much more likely than Narcissa to tell Voldemort, whether Snape
makes the Vow or not. So he had already taken this specific risk anyway.  


> Neri: 
> > 2) Did Dumbledore know about the third part of the UV and 
> if so, how  was he planning on handling it?
> 
> Pippin:
> "He cannot kill you if you are already dead." The third part of the
> vow only comes into effect "should it prove necessary." 
> Dumbledore would have planned to fake his death at Snape's hands.
> 

> Neri:
> > 3) Dumbledore dying of the poison in midair still sounds like a bit 
> > too much of a coincidence to me.
> 
> Pippin:
> Actually, he could have died of it anytime after he last spoke. He was
> slumped against the wall -- he gets weaker and weaker and seems
> to be in more and more pain all the time. It's perfectly possible
> Snape's AK hit a dead body and blasted it. It all depends on when 
> Harry ceased to be held by the spell and shock took over. That, we
> don't know. 
> <snip>

Neri:
Now it's not only one coincidence, but you're heaping them one over
the other. We have three events on the tower:

A) Draco fails in killing Dumbledore.

B) Snape shoots what looks like an AK at Dumbledore.

C) Dumbledore dies.

The canon strongly suggests that A should cause B and B should cause
C. You interpret the canon to mean that A didn't actually cause B and
B didn't actually cause C, and yet somehow by pure chance events A, B,
C happened in quick succession (I'd estimate max 60 seconds all
together). I'm not sure about the simplicity in that, but how about
plausibility?  



> Neri: 
> > In addition, accepting for a moment your basic premises for the
> tower  scene, it strikes me that two great minds such as Dumbledore
> and Snape, legilimening between them as they were, could have worked
> out  a much better solution to the situation. For example: Snape does
> a fake AK but *without* the levitation spell. Dumbledore plays dead. 
> Snape tells the DEs: "it's over! You go down the tower first, we're 
> coming after you". When the last DE had gone down the stairs Snape 
> tells Draco to take one of the two brooms and fly to the gate,
> he'll  join him there soon. After Draco had left Snape can stun the
> DEs on the stairs from above (non verbally, so they don't realize
> who's shooting at them). 
> 
> Pippin:
> Now who's being complicated? <g>

Neri:
Aw, cmo'n, these were only five sentences <g>. You called your seven
sentences explanation above "simple". 


> Pippin:
> The DE's are going to know *someone's* shooting at them.  Dead
> Dumbledore, invisible frozen Harry, wimpy Draco or Snape? 
> 
> No good.
> 

Neri:
What do we care what the DEs know if they're in Azkaban? Or obliviated?

There are many other reasonable possibilities here if you don't like
this one. If you insist on simplicity, then Dumbledore and Snape could
have done it the same way you say they did it, except Snape *wouldn't*
use levitation. So this would be simpler than what you suggest, and it
would give Dumbledore a chance to talk to Harry after the DEs leave.

In fact, assuming all your premises I really can't figure out why the
heck did Snape toss Dumbledore down the tower at all. Why did he even
think about it? If AK victims indeed always drop down dead, who'd know
that better than experienced DEs? It would look *suspicious* to them
that Dumbledore didn't just drop. Dumbledore playing dead on the tower
would be simpler *and* more reasonable solution by far. 


> Pippin:
> And it doesn't work in the literary sense if we're supposed to 
> be unsure which side Snape is on. And we are -- Jo said she
> couldn't answer that question.

Neri:
IIRC her words (after being heavily pumped about it) were more like "I
have to leave some hope".


Neri