COS Chapter Eighteen: "Dobby's Reward"
Jan. 15th, 2011 02:40 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
for-diddled.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslock* Dumbledore’s beaming at Harry. Yes, Albus, it must be nice to know that Harry now worships you so much that he cares about your reaction more than anyone else’s.
* So how long has Dumbles known that Riddle’s been possessing Ginny? After HBP, I wouldn’t be surprised to know that he’d guessed from the start, but has been sitting on the information to let Harry “try his strength” or whatever.
* “Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was actually called Tom Riddle.” Yes, Dumbles, because you never tell anyone. Which seems somewhat odd, given that the pureblood fanatics who apparently make up his biggest supporters might hesitate at joining a known half-blood. Plus, of course, it’s a lot harder to be scared of Tommy Riddle of Slytherin House than it is of Lord Voldemort, Master of Death.
* On second thoughts, it’s not that odd. After all, the threat of Voldemort provides a useful means of distracting people from the underlying problems facing the Wizarding World, not least of which is the fact that this Machiavellian schoolteacher is controlling everything behind the scenes.
* Seriously, for all his supposed modesty in not accepting the Minister of Magic post, he seems to have acquired a remarkably large amount of influence. He’s already Headmaster of wizarding Britain’s only school, Supreme Warlock of the Wizengamot, Chief Mugwump and head of the International Confederation of Wizards, which in Muggle terms is like being Education Secretary, Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Chancellor and Secretary-General of the UN all at once. More powerful, in fact, since the Education Secretary doesn’t hire and fire individual teachers, or expel individual pupils. No wonder he wants people distracted by Voldemort.
* Someone really ought to write a parody fic with Dumbledore as this sinister villain controlling everything behind the scenes, and the Death Eaters as a group of noble freedom-fighters trying to overthrow him, who have an unfair reputation as a group of dark wizards due to Dumbledore’s control of the press. Or better yet, Voldemort could be an agent working for Dumbledore, giving the WW something to unite against in order to stop them questioning Dumbledore’s authority.
* I wonder if Dumbledore’s being so lenient to Ginny here because he’s remembering how he was once taken in by Grindlewald?
* For some reason, I now find myself always suspecting the worst every time Dumbledore’s eyes start twinkling. I wonder what he could be up to here?
* Note how it’s Ron who immediately thinks of Hermione being OK. Another clue to Hr/R?
* Special Awards for Services to the School and two hundred points? Hardly an appropriate reward, IMHO. Not only is fighting millennium-old monsters not a recognised extra-curricular activity, making it inappropriate to give them points for it, but a glorified school trophy seems a bit inadequate. They should be given Orders of Merlin instead.
* Dumbledore doesn’t seem surprised that Lockhart tried to memory charm Harry and Ron. So does this mean that he knew all along about Gilderoy’s modus operandi? And he still hired him nevertheless? Remind me again, why is it that Dumbledore’s considered the greatest Headmaster Hogwarts has ever had?
* Harry doesn’t think he’s like Tom, because Harry’s in Gryffindor and Tom’s just a Slytherin. Oh dear. Maybe Voldemort’s idea of abolishing Houses was a good one after all.
* Also, note how Harry thinks “doing well in Slytherin” means “evil”. Yet more evidence of the Houses dividing students and encouraging them to think of members of other Houses as being beneath them. Seriously, it’s like the Founders thought that the WW was too boring, and set up a system purposefully designed to lead to as much civil war as possible.
* This would be an excellent opportunity for Dumbledore to say to Harry, “Look, Harry, I know you don’t like some Slytherin students, but Slytherins are people too, Slytherin House is every bit as good as any other House, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being sorted into Slytherin.” Instead, he seems to confirm Harry’s idea that choosing not to be sorted into Slytherin is some sort of moral test he had to pass.
* Getting all psychoanalytical here, I think that maybe Dumbledore knows deep down that he’d have been better-suited to Slytherin than Gryffindor (he’s cunning and manipulative enough, at any rate), and compensates by doing down Slytherin House whenever he can get away with it.
* Only a true Gryffindor could have pulled the sword out of the Hat, apparently. So does that mean that no other House member would be able to receive help from the Hat, or would they have pulled out something equally cool? If, say, Pansy had been taken into the Chamber and Draco had gone down to rescue her, would he have pulled out Slytherin’s crossbow or something?
* I’d like to think that Helga Hufflepuff, at least, would have offered up her weapon (battle-axe, maybe? Mace?) to anyone who needed it, regardless of House.
* So why did the governors want Dumbledore back? When has he done anything to stop the attacks?
* I don’t believe the cursing families part, either. A shrewd political operator like Lucius would never resort to something so obviously illegal. More likely the governors are just trying to cover their backsides in case Dumbledore’s angry with them. You know what he’s like about personal loyalty, after all.
* Come to think of it, does anyone know whether any of the governors went on to mysteriously find themselves in a position where their only option involved doing some humiliating and demeaning job for Dumbledore?
* So Lucius, a man whom even Voldemort described as “slippery”, now virtually goes to pieces the moment his plot’s uncovered. Has JKR been getting the car batteries out again, perhaps?
* If any more of Voldemort’s schoolthings turn up, Mr. Weasley will have them traced back to Lucius. That’s right, one of the main good guys is going to frame his personal enemy based on nothing more than a hunch.
* So “Lucius throws a sock which Dobby happens to catch” is now the same as “Lucius hands Dobby a sock.” Hmm, you’re on shaky legal grounds there, I think.
* Unfortunately, being free doesn’t seem to have changed Dobby’s inherent servility. Even more unfortunately, he’ll be back to inflict it upon us in later books.
* I hope than when Dumbles cancelled all those exams, he just cancelled the internal end-of-year ones, rather than the OWLs and NEWTs. How’re those seventh-years going to get jobs without any qualifications?
* Lucius Malfoy’s been sacked as a school governor. By whom, exactly? Do governors have the power to sack each other?
* Ginny Weasley’s perfectly happy again. She may have recklessly endangered her fellow-students’ safety (why did she write in that diary again? Why?), but none of them actually died, so that’s OK.
* So Percy – who, let us not forget, seems to have cared for Ginny the most out of all the Weasley brothers – has specifically asked her not to tell anyone about his girlfriend, so what does she do? Tell as soon as someone asks. In front of the twins. The best you can say is probably that she’s being extraordinarily naïve; the worst, I suppose, is that she’s maliciously hoping that the twins’ persecution of Percy might amuse her in some way.
* So, to recap, she’s written in this diary even after she suspects it’s possessing her, not told anyone that she’s the one attacking people, and completely betrayed Percy’s confidence. And yet, somehow, I still like this version better than the second one.
* Still, kissing in deserted corridors doesn’t seem particularly IC for the Percy we know. More evidence that he’s not nearly as pompous normally as he is when surrounded by people who constantly try to belittle him?
* And on that bombshell, it’s time to end the read-through. Thanks to everyone who read and commented on it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-15 10:28 pm (UTC)After HBP, I wouldn’t be surprised to know that he’d guessed from the start, but has been sitting on the information to let Harry “try his strength” or whatever.
Dumbledore's attitude in this chapter that he knew everything from the start really really REALLY peeved me, as I recall. It's no wonder there were so many fanfics over the years that had him deliberately setting up Harry's adventures, as some part of an asinine plan to 'train' Harry.
But what I'm confused about is ... is that position now rock-solid canon? When Rowling had Dumbledore say this in book 7:
"We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength," said Dumbledore, his eyes still tight shut.
I took it for pure bull, just her trying to sidestep questions her readers may have been asking at that point - "if it was planned for Harry to die why have we spent ten years wading through seven books of his adventures?". Because the whole 'testing his strength' thing just doesn't make sense.
(Nor did the other 'essential' item on Dumbledore's agenda, stated immediately before:
"So the boy…the boy must die?" asked Snape quite calmly.
"And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential."
There was absolutely NOTHING involved in Harry's death, the release of his soul fragment or resurrection which required Riddle's being the one to deliver the death blow. Nothing. But Rowling needed the readers to believe that her series mandated the expected big showdown between the two, so she hoped Dumbledore's/her unsupported bluster here would be accepted without question.)
Anyway, even though it makes no sense for Dumbledore to plan for his sacrificial lamb to 'test his strength' - unless anyone here can tell me otherwise - is it still canon that, in these early books, Dumbledore *did* know of - and even plan - Harry's little adventures? That could have resulted in the deaths of the Trio and any number of other students? Or did Rowling just not think of the implications when she threw in those 'essential' statements of Dumbledore's in DH?
“Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was actually called Tom Riddle.” Yes, Dumbles, because you never tell anyone.
Ludicrous, isn't it? And yet that's one big bluff that Rowling got away with. She needed Riddle to spearhead the DEs and drive them with the pureblood agenda, so Dumbledore, leader of the Wizarding World, just kept that secret to himself, and Harry never questions this.
So “Lucius throws a sock which Dobby happens to catch” is now the same as “Lucius hands Dobby a sock.” Hmm, you’re on shaky legal grounds there, I think.
Yeah, that was yet another example of Rowling just throwing something together for the convenience of her plot and hoping it would stick. My god, why in blazes did this series get to be so popular? And everyone shocked when she just kept doing the same thing? Was it because there was just SO MUCH of it, defying belief, blowing all the fuses, in the last book?
So Percy – who, let us not forget, seems to have cared for Ginny the most out of all the Weasley brothers – has specifically asked her not to tell anyone about his girlfriend, so what does she do? Tell as soon as someone asks.
Oh, THANK YOU. I'm adding this to the list of why Ginny Weasley is simply a not-very-nice girl.
See, the Ginny supporters in the fandom don't like to consider all of her bad qualities (which is most of her appearances in books 6 & 7). In particular they sidestep the fact that Ginny betrayed Hermione's confidence in HBP. Ginny's telling Ron that Hermione had kissed Krum is what started the whole miserable and pathetic sequence of ugly puerile jealousy that filled up most of that book. All Ginny Weasley's fault, betraying Hermione's confidence to get herself off the hook when Ron accosts her about kissing Dean.
This is a beautiful parallel to that and just shows how nasty this girl is.
Thanks for your critique of the book, it's been good fun!
no subject
Date: 2011-01-15 11:19 pm (UTC)Maybe he wanted Voldemort to be sure of Harry's death? Voldemort believed the prophecy even if Albus didn't. Of course, if the prophecy turned out to have real power, there was the risk that Voldemort was the only person who could kill Harry since the blood protection might not kick in if one of the pair kills the other (in the same way you'd always want to retain the option of, say, amputating an infected limb).
Anyway, even though it makes no sense for Dumbledore to plan for his sacrificial lamb to 'test his strength' - unless anyone here can tell me otherwise - is it still canon that, in these early books, Dumbledore *did* know of - and even plan - Harry's little adventures? That could have resulted in the deaths of the Trio and any number of other students? Or did Rowling just not think of the implications when she threw in those 'essential' statements of Dumbledore's in DH?
I don't know if Albus was actively planning them, but he was certainly turning a blind eye (and possibly subconsciously hoping Harry would die in one of them).
no subject
Date: 2011-01-16 12:24 am (UTC)That's a nice bit of reasoning that proves beyond all doubt that Dumbledore placed absolutely no stock in the prophecy, a complete turnaround from two books earlier. Because if only Harry could kill the Dark Lord then the last think you'd do would be to send the boy off to be slaughtered. Because that would leave the dark lord alive and immortal.
And if he believed in the prophecy, then instructing that Harry could be killed only by Riddle was basically making doubly sure that Harry would truly perish, too, right?
No, the whole thing just doesn't make sense.
I don't know if Albus was actively planning them, but he was certainly turning a blind eye (and possibly subconsciously hoping Harry would die in one of them).
My gut feel is that Rowling would be shocked to hear you say that (and would instruct you to "go back and re-read the books. :-)). Young Dumbledore had dark leanings, yes, but I'm pretty sure we're supposed to think only good thoughts about the headmaster version.
Ugh. The whole series is such a mess.
Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-16 03:23 pm (UTC)And up until Dumbles finally figured out Harry wasn't Tom's only Horcrux, he thought that if Harry died while Tom was still discorporate Tom would be gone for good.
So fully believing in the prophecy, and cheerfully accepting the possibility of Harry's dying by accident in the course of his "training", are perfectly compatible.
Re: Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-17 07:14 am (UTC)This is one of those things where it would be safer to append a smiley-face :-) so I know you're writing tongue-in-cheek.
But just in case you're not ...
At that point there IS a unique power to vanquish the Dark Lord that Harry and no one else has. Harry, and no one else, can destroy a Horcrux by committing suicide (or being killed while "trying his strength").
Yes, but that's hardly 'unique'; there are seven of the bloomin' Horcruxes floating around.
(That's why I scoff at those who bleat Rowling's attempted brainwashing that Harry defeated Voldemort with the 'power of love'. Uhm, no. Maybe two-eighths of Voldemort at the most. :-))
And up until Dumbles finally figured out Harry wasn't Tom's only Horcrux, he thought that if Harry died while Tom was still discorporate Tom would be gone for good.
Okay, say you're saying that Dumbledore may have believed in the prophetic 'power the dark lord knows not' when he thought that Harry was the *sole* horcrux? What's the canon position on when Dumbledore knew what about the horcruxes anyway? I just have a quick skim through DH but couldn't find it. After the GoF graveyard even when Dumbledore has the two snakes materialise in one of his gizmos?
Anyway, even if/when Harry was the sole Horcrux, that doesn't give HIM the 'power the dark lord knows not'. It gives that power to EVERYBODY. Anyone can waltz up and destroy the Horcrux-known-as-Harry-Potter with an AK, Fiendfyre, basilisk venom, a sword, poison, mains electricity, an anvil ...
Re: Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-17 07:27 am (UTC)But only one of them was another person.
Okay, say you're saying that Dumbledore may have believed in the prophetic 'power the dark lord knows not' when he thought that Harry was the *sole* horcrux? What's the canon position on when Dumbledore knew what about the horcruxes anyway? I just have a quick skim through DH but couldn't find it. After the GoF graveyard even when Dumbledore has the two snakes materialise in one of his gizmos?
When Harry returned from the graveyard with the story about Tom going further than anyone else (where no wizard had gone before?) Albus knew for certain that Tom had made at least one other deliberate Horcrux besides the diary before he vaporized. The silver gizmo (December of OOTP) confirmed that Nagini was a Horcrux. Which also meant that whatever number of Horcruxes Tom had originally planned to make, he did not complete his plan by the time he went to Godric's Hollow.
Then it was a matter of looking for hints and patterns in the memories Albus already had of the days of Tom's life.
Anyway, even if/when Harry was the sole Horcrux, that doesn't give HIM the 'power the dark lord knows not'. It gives that power to EVERYBODY. Anyone can waltz up and destroy the Horcrux-known-as-Harry-Potter with an AK, Fiendfyre, basilisk venom, a sword, poison, mains electricity, an anvil
But that would cost that person's soul. Better have Harry do it himself, and even better, leave it to Tom.
Re: Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-17 07:40 am (UTC)Terri disagreed (I still think she was joking?); IF Harry was a Horcrux, she said, then:
At that point there IS a unique power to vanquish the Dark Lord that Harry and no one else has. Harry, and no one else, can destroy a Horcrux by committing suicide (or being killed while "trying his strength").
This seems to be clearly incorrect. Like I said, *anyone* and his dog could waltz up and kill Harry-the-Horcrux. So Terri's bit about no one else being able to destroy the Horcrux is incorrect.
(Only if the manner of that death MUST be suicide, and clearly that's not the case for Horcruxes.)
But only one of them was another person.
So? It doesn't make a difference.
Anyway, there were two living Horcruxes, so Harry wasn't unique even there.
Thank you for summarising Dumbledore's timeline for his Horcrux theorising. From what you said there was no time when he believed that Harry was the sole Horcrux, so Terri's wrong there also?
How do we know from the canon that Nagini wasn't around from the first war? Most of the horcruxes would have been created before the AK bounced off baby Harry, right? Most of his horcrux hunt that we got from the - *yawn* - HBP pensieve filler concerned Riddle's preparations before he came out as a dark lord.
But that would cost that person's soul.
No; murder just weakens the soul, makes it susceptible to fragmentation, doesn't it? But you need a spell to do the deed and stash the broken bit in a Horcrux.
Re: Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-17 08:14 am (UTC)That is a matter of interpretation, but from the moment Albus understood how Harry survived he should be able to hypothesize that Harry was a Horcrux. The fact is, he insisted from day one that Tom would return, yet did nothing to search for his Horcrux. So I think from Halloween 1981 until the end of COS Albus believed Harry was the one Horcrux. Then he learned that the diary had been one, but was already destroyed, leaving again Harry as the only one. Followed by the rest.
How do we know from the canon that Nagini wasn't around from the first war?
She isn't in the vision Harry sees of Tom going to Godric's Hollow, then she is when Peter brings Tom to Britain from Albania. Where would she have stayed all the years? How would the BabyMort&Peter team have reunited with her? It never occurred to me that Nagini wasn't a new pet that Tom picked up in his exile, once he came up with his resurrection scheme.
No; murder just weakens the soul, makes it susceptible to fragmentation, doesn't it? But you need a spell to do the deed and stash the broken bit in a Horcrux.
Yes, but the soul is meant to remain whole, untorn. See Horace to Tom, Severus to Albus. Normal people don't want rips in their souls.
Re: Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-17 02:00 pm (UTC)Re: Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-17 12:26 pm (UTC)According to Slughorn (and Snape and Dumbledore by implication, though I'd far rather we had an explicit explanation by a known Dark Arts expert), murder splits the soul, and Horcruxification puts a soul fragment in an external vessel. Externalising the soul (and possibly preventing it from healing naturally) seems to be what deforms a mass murderer, not all the murders themselves.
Re: Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-17 02:12 pm (UTC)At that point there IS a unique power to vanquish the Dark Lord that Harry and no one else has. Harry, and no one else, can destroy a Horcrux by committing suicide (or being killed while "trying his strength").
She's saying that only Harry can destroy a horcrux via the method of committing suicide. Anyone else would have to commit murder to kill the Harry-crux. Murder damages the soul. Some might suggest that suicide does, also, and at a point in one's life (the end of it) where the person has no more time in which to allow the soul to heal. In the hypothetical case of Harry being the only horcrux, then, if Harry died accidentally, then no other person has committed deliberate murder and, Harry will not have damaged his own soul at the point of death. So, allowing Harry to "try his strength" could result in a dead Harry-crux without the problem of anyone's soul being damaged since no one had to murder him.
We could get into a debate about whether manslaughter could damage a soul and, if it did, if it would damage it as much as the deliberate murder of a person. I would say it doesn't since there is a clear difference in intent between murder, the deliberate killing of a person, and manslaughter, accidentally causing a person's death.
No one would need to kill a person at all to destroy the other horcruxes, though people do get squeamish about killing a living animal. Killing Nagini is not killing a person. The diary, the cup, the diadem, etc., can be destroyed through magical means. And, none of the other horcruxes are human. The cup can't commit suicide, for instance. Nagini might be able to off herself somehow (hard to do without hands) but the intent to commit suicide needs to be there for her to damage her soul. Now, if Nagini is a magical creature, she may have more responsibility along those lines - magical creatures tend to come off as more sentient (think of Buckbeak) but her intent would still be more diminished than a human's. If she's just a cool snake Voldemort picked up in his travels and not a magical creature, she would be accorded no responsibility at all for killing herself since we could assume that an animal's instinct is for survival so an animal has no conscious intent to go against that instinct.
Re: Stock in the prophecy - part II
Date: 2011-01-17 02:13 pm (UTC)We might also debate whether a magical animal has a soul as we understand it. Some Muggle religions and belief systems believe that animals have souls so of course, under those systems, magical creatures would also have souls. Other Muggle religions and belief systems believe that animals do not have souls. Under those systems it would be difficult to discern if a magical creature would have a soul or not since it is clearly different from other animals yet it is still an animal. An animal can't be tried for murder because of its diminished understanding of murder and its stronger instinct to kill for food or for defense which drives it. So, an animal could potentially not be held responsible for offing itself since it has a limited understanding of why it might kill. So, even though Nagini is a living horcrux, she has no option to commit suicide since that requires heightened responsibility and the understanding that goes along with it. She may be able to off herself but she would have no understanding of the morality or the lack of morality of the act.
We could also debate whether the deliberate destruction of a horcrux constitutes murder since it releases a human soul from its container but I would think that the damaged soul bit would not constitute a full and undamaged soul. It has no ability to regenerate - the soul seems to have no power to re-grow portions of itself, only to heal what has been damaged. A fragment of the soul would not have the central part of it that may be necessary for regeneration. I'm not even sure if the soul bit is alive since it has been torn from its core. The soul bits in Harry and Nagini may still be alive because they have another entity's essence to live off of but, does that mean that a soul bit can be artificially kept alive without any intention of re-connecting it to its core self? I tend toward thinking that horcruxing a piece of soul is more like putting a severed finger on ice without meaning to re-attach it. It's still alive but it has no function and no chance of regaining its function since its only purpose now is to ensure the immortality of the body that ejected it.
Re: Stock in the prophecy - part II
Date: 2011-01-17 02:58 pm (UTC)In settings such as this where there's a distinction between the mind and soul, I'd personally define murder as ending the life of/destroying something containing a sapient being's mind rather than a soul. But regardless of that sort of metaphysical question, destroying a Horcrux while its owner is still incarnate looks more like destroying someone's life support while they're not using it.
Re: Stock in the prophecy
Date: 2011-01-17 04:21 pm (UTC)Now, if one interprets 'vanquish' to mean defeat, ending the power or reign of, and Harry dies while he is the only/last existing Horcrux, making Voldemort mortal - he's ending Voldemort's reign of 'immortality,' taking away the one power that makes him seemingly undefeatable, allowing potentially anyone to then kill him. So he is vanquishing Voldemort even if he really dies, as long as no other Horcruxes exist at that point in time. One doesn't have to collapse 'vanquish' and 'kill' into meaning the same thing; the 'either must die' part is so vague, and also possibly applies to the Godric's Hollow event, so it doesn't necessitate that reading of 'vanquish' either.
And dying in order to destroy the last Horcrux *is* something that *only* Harry can do. Whether by suicide, or murder, nobody can die in Harry's place and still have Voldemort be 'vanquished.'
no subject
Date: 2011-01-15 11:42 pm (UTC)Agreed. At most, Albus may have wanted it to be Riddle because Riddle usually prefers clean AKs that leave the body whole, so Harry's soul would be likely to have a body to return to. Someone else might do something body-destroying like Fiendfyre or an entrail-expelling curse or whatever and Harry might end up dead for good or in some kind of vapor form.
As for Harry's adventures - in PS it seems like he was dangling the whole thing as bait - from sending Hagrid to retrieve the stone in Harry's view to returning the cloak to Harry from the Astronomy Tower. In COS he gives Harry hints at two opportunities. In GOF he doesn't seek any loopholes in the 'binding magical contract' that might keep Harry out of the tasks. PS looks like a deliberate set-up, in later books Albus' approach is more opportunistic.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-16 12:18 am (UTC)Which just reminds us of yet another huge DH flaw; Voldemort AK'ing everyone in the book, Harry continually picking up 'flashes of green light' in the Dark Lord Mental Broadcast Network newsflashes ...
... until it's time to kill Snape. At which point Rowling realises that Snape needs to pass on the memories to Harry. So - for no reason - Voldemort (a) chooses NOT to AK Snape; (b) to get Nagini to do it - even though the whole point of Snape's murder is to demonstrate clear *direct* mastery of the previous owner of the Elder Wand; and (c) then leaves a dying Snape alone in the shack.
Pfah! What a *terrible* book!
My gut feel is that Rowling would be terribly surprised to hear that fans think that Dumbledore planned or encouraged Harry's early adventures and condoned the terrible risks to all concerned; she'd probably instruct them to 'go back and re-read the books'. :-) Because Dumbledore - old Dumbledore - was the wise and totally *good* wizard.
I really do think the "it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength" baloney was just another thing she tossed into DH to try and prop it up without understanding how it contradicted her earlier work (or, in this case, corrupted it).
Regardless, Dumbledore's saying that it was 'essential' to let Harry live all those years was pure bluster and doesn't make sense. Doubly so 'teaching' him and letting him 'try his strength'. Who cares if the sacrificial lamb learnt how to play the violin? :-)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-16 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-16 11:28 am (UTC)I always assumed that it was due to Harry's blood protection: Voldemort wouldn't be able to kill him, so would just end up destroying the fragment of his soul in Harry, whereas another Death Eater would just be able to kill him properly. Or was that negated by Voldie's use of Harry's blood in his resurrection ceremony? I'm afraid I find it rather hard to keep track of these things, given the number of times Rowling contradicts herself.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-16 11:38 am (UTC)That's just it; there's NOTHING in the text that suggests that there is any difference between an AK from Voldemort and an AK from 'another Death Eater'. The trick to Harry's coming back was the fact that the 'shared blood' in Riddle acted as an ersatz Horcrux, anchoring Harry to the world of the living. But that would have been the case no matter who or what killed him. The shared blood gimmick worked once Harry was dead, from whatever cause.
I'm afraid I find it rather hard to keep track of these things, given the number of times Rowling contradicts herself.
Yes, I know. But this time she doesn't even give a reason. She - through Dumbledore - simply says "It is essential that it is Voldemort that kills Harry ... uhm ... BECAUSE I SAY SO" and then crosses her fingers and hopes we'll all accept it.
As sharaz_jek helped me work out earlier, there's an excellent reason for Dumbledore to have said ANYONE ELSE OTHER THAN VOLDEMORT SHOULD KILL HARRY. Because - if the prophecy were to be believed - only Riddle could 'kill' Harry. Maybe *anyone else* trying it would result in exactly what you said, Harry surviving and only the dark lord's soul fragment being destroyed.
That little segue is just more proof that Rowling tossed the prophecy away entirely after book 5. And makes her pitiful attempts to drag it back in to try and make people think that it mattered, that her work was deep enough, by having Harry quote it in the big finale, even more pathetic.
But back to the main point - I can't see anything at all in the books that supported Dumbledore's assertion that it had to be Riddle to kill Harry. I wish Snape had turned around and said "oh, why?" when he was told that. But he didn't, of course; his writer didn't know the answer.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-16 05:07 pm (UTC)At least we can give Snape an excuse for going brain blank.
He'd been working for one purpose since 1980 and Dumbledore who told him it was important, just told him, everything you've been doing and the whole reason you've been hanging out with me all these years has actually been a lie.
Now, do this instead Severus, good boy.
At least unlike the author, Snape can pretend horror and go into a sort of shock state where his brain hits the breaks on thinking.
Hay Severus, how does it feel to have the two most powerful wizards in the world that you trusted BOTH Screw you over?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-17 09:05 am (UTC)He'd been working for one purpose since 1980 and Dumbledore who told him it was important, just told him, everything you've been doing and the whole reason you've been hanging out with me all these years has actually been a lie.
Incidentally this is the one canon fact that convinces me that Snape was truly redeemed and ultimately a 'good guy' (albeit a nasty one).
I can't really accept that his childish love of 18 years earlier for a girl who rejected him totally and then married his worst enemy was enough to keep him going for all of that time. That he'd put up with whatever stress there was in being a spy upon Voldemort's reincarnation, just for that reason. That he never fell in love with someone else, that 18 years later he was still putting up with everything just for that lost love. This reason for Snape's allegiance rings rather hollow for me; it's another example of the superficial simplicity of Rowling's plot.
Beyond that I hadn't thought much about Snape, but I'd thought he was still a bad guy at heart, that the only thing stopping him from joining the Death Eaters for real was this passion for the lost Lily and the transference of that onto protecting her son.
Yet there's a period there, at the end, where Dumbledore tells him that Lily's son is going to die. And Snape still goes with the programme, still works in concert with Dumbledore's 'plan', even though it will necessitate Harry's death.
I.e. Snape put the 'greater good' ahead of his own personal motivation to protect Lily's son.
So he'd turned over a new leaf and become a 'good guy' after all. Supporting the 'those I could not save' line which otherwise hadn't impressed me much.
I pretty much missed that until it was mentioned on a HP forum and brought to my attention.
But I still wish he'd questioned Dumbledore, so that total ridiculousness of the headmaster's so-called 'plan' - oh, and the plot of Deathly Hallows and in fact the entire HP series - could have been revealed. Curse Rowling for not allowing her characters to expose her flaws even more for all to see!
no subject
Date: 2011-01-17 02:05 pm (UTC)Probably because she thought she was clever and this wasn't a flaw...
(Reply to this) (Parent)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-17 02:40 pm (UTC)I kinda feel the same way, in what you posted.
For Snape to work for me, something had to change in the character. Even looking back on the meeting in Spinners End with narcissa and Bellatrix. Severus did not have to make the unbreakable vow. In fact since Voldemort said Narcissa/Draco was not to tell anyone about it, it stands to reason that Severus could have just as easily been killed for helping them.
Clearly Voldemort was satisfied that Snape killed Dumbledore - it doesn't seem that Draco was punished for not doing the deed. However, this was a conflict to Voldemorts direct order and Snape if he were truly a heartless bastard could have told Narcissa no, OR at the very worst turned Bellatrix and Narcissa in for disloyalty.
Severus already seems to have had the plan with Dumbledore, so the unbreakable vow really served no purpose except to misdirect us into beleving Snape was evil, when in fact he was actually helping his friend Lucius son. It showed a loyalty in Snape that was missed by most readers due to the idea that it ended up being the death of Dumbledore.
So he'd turned over a new leaf and become a 'good guy' after all. Supporting the 'those I could not save' line which otherwise hadn't impressed me much.
Yes, whereas Dumbledore seems willing to sacrifice the nameless, faceless people. Snape seems to come out at least to be more loyal, even to those he doesn't particularly like.
I never got the vibe he wanted to be a death eater anymore - it just never felt exactly right to me, even before the end of the series I was questioning it. i guess it may be because I started out reading and getting into the series after OOTP was published. So I read the first 5 books together in a row.
I don't say I knew for sure that Snape was going to end up having this big part to play but there was way to much problems he caused for the hero for the Snape character to just be another DE. It was way to obvious there was some underline in the history going on, and the subtle hints of various things that made me very suspitious of what exactly was the characters purpose.
But I still wish he'd questioned Dumbledore, so that total ridiculousness of the headmaster's so-called 'plan' - oh, and the plot of Deathly Hallows and in fact the entire HP series - could have been revealed. Curse Rowling for not allowing her characters to expose her flaws even more for all to see!
Didn't the author once say in an interview Snape would be a character she wouldn't invite to dinner. LOL! Maybe thats why!