Is Dumbledore Dead or Alive? v6

[Tane]

Originally Posted by kingwidgit

JK may not say specifically X - Y - Z will happen, however in the same interview where JK states the people betting Dumbledore would die in HBP had wagered correctly & got it right, she also tells us:Yes, she's cagey, yes she's subtle---but she's not lied to fans in interviews. She might change her mind in a subsequent book, changing the information she'd previously given in an interview---but never on a major plot point.That interview can be found here. But what JK actually said was:Which gives a different slant to that interview question.

Not really it still says to me that Jo is hiding something in relation to Dumbledore being a goner.

How about a different piece of canon then?This seems to preclude any magic, with or without wand, from reawakening the dead. Besides, what is the point of Voldemort fearing death and trying to obtain immortality so that he never dies, if there is a spell or a magic out there that he might be able to access and thwart death by some other means?

Ah but Jo cuts off Scrimgeour from saying the word dead. Dumbledore might not even have died if he was born immortal as he would not have died up in the tower or on the floor at the base of that tower. If you are born with an ability can that be deemed as magic though. Where do you draw the line between something that is of magical ability and something you are just born with. This all comes down to whether Albus has an ability that is even recognised by the ministry or known. If Albus is unique and has abilities that not even the ministry of magic know of then Scrimgeour could be wrong as Albus tells wizards on a need to know bases. I also recall the ministry of magic denying the fact that even Voldemort could return but he did.

You have a point though Scrimgeour might be right about Albus though I wonder whether Scrimgeour knows more about Albus than we the reader through Harry does. It was only a possibility and this possibility required Fawkes who is not classed as magical really and if Fawkes is then magic can bring back the dead.

On a more canon based thought:

Originally Posted by GoF, page 603, after Cedric dies

'If I thought I could help you,' Dumbledore said gently, 'by putting you into an enchanted sleep, and allowing you to postpone the moment when you would have to think about what has happened tonight, I would do it. But I know better. Numbing the pain for a while will make it worse when you finally feel it.

So I am not sure, would Dumbledore fake his death by using the draught of living death after that statement?

Now Dumbledore would not put Harry into an enchanted sleep but would he subject himself to one as he has obviously ponder on this thought or he would have never brought it up in the first place.

Edit: Also I had this little thought; the enchanted sleep comes up again in GoF. Both Ron and Hermione stated that they where put under some bewitched sleep. Now my question is why did they not drown or die in the lake as they mentioned nothing about having to take anything, just that Dumbledore put them to sleep and as a result they could stay under water for well over 1 hour.

So is there an enchanted sleep that prevents anything from killing you when under that enchantment?

Dumbledore did look as though he was falling asleep just before Snape used the Avada Kedavra spell on Dumbledore.

[Paintball]

Originally Posted by KingWidget

How about a different piece of canon then?HBP, The White Tomb"Such loyalty is admirable, of course, said Scrimgeour, who seemed to be restraining his irritation with difficulty, "but Dumbledore is gone, Harry. He is gone."
"He will only be gone from the school when none here are loyal to him," said Harry, smiling in spite of himself.
"My dear boy...even Dumbledore cannot return from the---"
"I'm not saying he can. You wouldn't understand."

Isn't that a very interesting conversation. Ministry officials arrived at Hogwarts shortly after the tower scene. We have no knowledge as to what type of murder investigation was conducted or if Dumbledore's body was examined for cause of death. All the alivers keep talking about Dumbledore and the order being in on the plan to fake Dumbledore's death. If they are going to develope any believable theory, I think they are going to have to include Scrimgeour in on this plan.

[Tane]

Originally Posted by Paintball

Isn't that a very interesting conversation. Ministry officials arrived at Hogwarts shortly after the tower scene. We have no knowledge as to what type of murder investigation was conducted or if Dumbledore's body was examined for cause of death. All the alivers keep talking about Dumbledore and the order being in on the plan to fake Dumbledore's death. If they are going to develope any believable theory, I think they are going to have to include Scrimgeour in on this plan.

I did in the early fake death posts though put forward Scrimgeour's involvement. Especially when he comes our with a spell that was not cast by Harry and questions him about it. If the spell was a mistake and they could not identify the difference between someone concious and someone unconcious then they could have missed the difference between someone in an enchanted deep sleep and someone who is dead.

So what is it error by the ministry with that spell and if so then perhaps Dumbedore capitalised on the lack of ability to analysis a crime scene. Or there was something going on up in the tower, something strange.

[hpfan101]

Originally Posted by touchstone

Snape Bad/Dumbledore Dead/Alive Again
Snape Good/Dumbledore Dead/Alive Again

I keep wondering about the symbolism in these books. One of the most profound I would say is The Phoenix. The Phoenix is a symbols of rebirth, rebirth is also redemption and renewal. I believe that Dumbledore is closely associated with The Phoenix. Dumbedore may feel his soul needs redemption. If Harry is experiencing a lot of what Dumbledore experienced when he was put in the position of defeating a dark wizard, and his choices on how to do that left him feeling torn, he would wish to help Harry make different choices. I believe that Dumbledore would choose to sacrifice his own soul irredeemingly to save Harry's. That is why I believe it is possible that Dumbledore created his own horcrux.

But then, Dumbledore would never be Dead if he created a horcrux, as Voldemort never really died; his soul was just ripped from his body. Although I am nitpicking, as it is only your choice of words—I don’t believe Dumbledore can be Dead and then be Alive again (as I am with kingwidgit here--Dead mean Dead). But I do understand why you offer this option: as I could also see Dumbledore doing anything to save Harry, even destroying his own soul, but I don’t think out of all the options, it is the most obvious nor is it the easiest nor the most logical option, as other options could advance the plot in the same direction without destroying Dumbledore's soul.

Originally Posted by touchstone

And, who says that Dumbledore needs a spell to "reawaken" him from the dead? There are several ways that this "death" could be not as it seems.

Furthering what I just wrote above, Jo said that when she decided the rules of her universe, one of the first things she decided was that dead=dead. No one can come back from the dead. If Dumbledore never died, that’s another story….but if he died, he’s dead. :no comment:

Originally Posted by Tane

Yes so do I because Albus Dumbledore called his order The Order of the Phoenix. This order was made by Albus before Harry was born so the name has some significance to him personally other than Fawkes, surely.

Incidentally, in the first draft, Jo had Dumbledore’s group being called “Dumbledore’s Army” and Harry’s group being called “The Order of the Phoenix.” She switched the names in later versions. We don’t know why, of course, but it's something to keep in mind.

Originally Posted by touchstone

I also am having a hard time reconciling Dumbledore's apparent weakness with his spurts of energy --- at the lake, climbing, fighting inferi, apparating Harry, reaching Hogsmeade, figuring out what to do, flying to the tower, hexing Harry, confronting Draco and several Death Eaters, taking a killing curse with such force he is thrown up and over the parapet...something doesn't add up. And my bets are on Dumbledore (as I have said numerous times before) weaving an intricate web of illusion and directing all the events in the last chapters of HBP. Harry is simply not strong enough to go head-to-head with Voldemort, there has to be some kind of subterfuge---and, as far as I am able to discern, Dumbledore is the only one up to that challenge. But, as we all know, anything on these boards is speculation, an exercise in imagination, I like examining it from as many points of view as possible--except maybe I have a problem believing Dumbledore is dead.

I disagree that Harry is not strong enough. I don't think the final battle will be about who has more knowledge of spells and magic, as clearly Voldemort would win. I don't think this final battle is going to take place in a duel-lke fashion, for as I just said, I think Voldemort would win. The thing that sets Harry apart is his ability to love, the "power the Dark Lord knows not." So why is there this assumption that Harry doesn't know enough to take on Voldemort? He has proven in every book that he has a remarkable ability to love. I think Harry will hold his own, as he held his own at age 11, 12, 14 and 15.

Originally Posted by Tane

The next step up from Tonk's ability would be the ability to naturally transform into some other than human, for example a phoenix….

Now lets just say Dumbledore can naturally from a genetic point of view transform himself into a phoenix, then could it not be possible that he also from a genetic point of view have the same abilities of death and re-birth as the phoenix does (he is a better transfiguration wizards than Tonks so it would not be a huge stretch).

Okay, I am going to try and explain this in a way that hopefully makes sense: If Dumbledore transforms into a phoenix, Dumbledore is first and foremost a HUMAN. Peter Pettigrew transformed into a rat…yet he was still Peter Pettigrew. In fact, he lived 12 years as a rat. As the worker at the animal shop in Diagon Alley said…that’s an EXTRAORDINARILY long time for a common garden rat. Wormtail didn’t all of a sudden become a rat and take on all of a rat's characteristics when he transformed: otherwise, he wouldn’t have lived more than 3 or 4 years (so even though he looked like a rat and "acted" like a rat--he still wasn't a rat. Even McGonagall sat "too rigidly" for a cat--PS/SS according to Dumbledore--and she was READING a sign. Not very cat-like). So just because Dumbledore can transfigure into a phoenix does NOT make him immortal, as even transfigured, he is STILL human and not a phoenix. He could live out his life as a phoenix, but once he reached a certain age, he would undoubtedly died of old age as a human, even if he were in phoenix form. Furthermore, if he died as a phoenix and then was reborn as a phoenix, when he retakes his human form, he won't be a baby again. He'll still be old Albus.

I really don’t see the difference in having a natural ability in turning into an animal and learning to become an Animagus. I know you are trying to make the distinction here, but just because someone can do it more easily, more naturally, doesn’t make the facts different: it is still transforming. Wizards don’t need a wand to transform into an animal (canon…not the movie version of PoA).

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by Paintball

Isn't that a very interesting conversation. Ministry officials arrived at Hogwarts shortly after the tower scene. We have no knowledge as to what type of murder investigation was conducted or if Dumbledore's body was examined for cause of death. All the alivers keep talking about Dumbledore and the order being in on the plan to fake Dumbledore's death. If they are going to develope any believable theory, I think they are going to have to include Scrimgeour in on this plan.

Maybe some alivers do. I think a much more believable aliver scenario is one in which very few people know. The minumum necessary is for Snape and Hagrid to know. (Snape, because he's have to know to do a fake Avada, Hagrid, because he handles the 'body'). Hagrid would not need to know in advance, necessarily.

[Paintball]

Originally Posted by zgirnius

Maybe some alivers do. I think a much more believable aliver scenario is one in which very few people know. The minumum necessary is for Snape and Hagrid to know. (Snape, because he's have to know to do a fake Avada, Hagrid, because he handles the 'body'). Hagrid would not need to know in advance, necessarily.

I guess I'm assuming that there would be an investigation into an allegation of murder. Since I accept DIATSSISE and believe that Dumbledore died from the vow rather then an AK, I have started believing that Scrimgeour knows more then most readers believe. I don't see how Dumbledore's cause of death could be kept from Scrimgeour. Maybe someone should open a seperate thread called "Dumbledore's Murder Investigation. What did it reveal?"

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by Paintball

I guess I'm assuming that there would be an investigation into an allegation of murder. Since I accept DIATSSISE and believe that Dumbledore died from the vow rather then an AK, I have started believing that Scrimgeour knows more then most readers believe. I don't see how Dumbledore's cause of death could be kept from Scrimgeour. Maybe someone should open a seperate thread called "Dumbledore's Murder Investigation. What did it reveal?"

I take the investigation of the murder (allegedly by Sirius Black) of twelve Muggles and (supposedly) Peter Pettigrew as the model for Ministry investigations of high profile murders involving the Death Eaters. Harry Potter is an eyewitness who saw the Death Eater Severus Snape cast an Avada Kedavra at Dumbledore. Snape was then seen fleeing the grounds of Hogwarts in the company of other Death Eaters. Several witnesses saw the dead body. All that is left for the Ministry to do is apprehend Snape, as I see it.

[DA_DA]

Originally Posted by piky

inahans and HedwigOwl:
I've often thought that there must have been some kind of transfiguration performed to make some other object seem to be Dumbledore's 'lifeless' body. My favorite "good/alive" scenarios are (after the faked Avada Kedavra):
1) Albus catches hold of Fawkes' tail feathers and is safely lowered to the ground (as inahans describes ).
2) He somehow lowers himself using non-verbal magic then meets Fawkes for some rudimentary healing and transfiguration.
3) Some 'accomplice' helps him get down, transfigures the rock (or whatever) to look like him, then plants the locket on the fake corpse. I'm not sure who this 'accomplice' would be (McGonnagal would be the only one that I feel could really be trusted), so this isn't my favorite of the three.

I agree with HedwigOwl that there probably wouldn't be enough time to examine the locket for veracity. Since Dumbledore wants Harry to go horcrux hunting (and destroying), I'm sure that he felt that Harry could 'handle' the locket -- real OR fake -- and just pulled it out and placed it with the corpse without looking at it. Things were probably pretty rushed at that point and Albus had to get off of the grounds as quickly as possible.

Another minor thought related to that last sentence; Dumbledore did have to leave Hogwarts rapidly because, sooner or later, Harry would be looking at the Marauder's Map and just might spot him if he'd stayed!
(btw: Does the Marauder's Map work when the user isn't AT Hogwarts? )

Nice thought gives us a new angle to work on.

CONGRATULATIONS

Originally Posted by touchstone

This is only Harry's feelings about what is happening. The "book" doesn't say, Harry "thinks." There is a difference. Harry has several misinterpretations of what is happening to his credit.



This is the argument that proves to me I am not expressing myself well. If Dumbledore is too noble to make a horcrux, why is he not noble enough to sacrifice is soul? Or, is it that the only really really noble person should be Harry? I keep coming back to Dumbledore stressing to Harry that it is our choices which determine who we are. I do not have a problem believing that Dumbledore came to this knowledge perhaps later in life and that he is trying to help Harry learn how to learn from other people's mistakes. Harry has already attempted to use a number of the unforgivable curses, besides using sectumsempra on Draco. If Harry is so noble, why is he able to try to use these curses? If he is able to try it, why is it impossible to believe that Dumbledore once did, only he was successful because he was so more learned than Harry when he was fighting a dark wizard? Dumbledore more than anyone knows what Harry is up against.



Sorry, don't know what this is about. I don't think Dumbledore and Snape changed places.



My belief that Dumbledore is alive is not because I would be unbearable sad if he died. I believe that the symbolism and themes the author is employing are pointing in the direction of the "death" being a lot more than is easily apparent. I believe this is a "twist" in the plot.





Thing is, this is not just a Snape Good/Dumbledore Alive thread, it is IS Dumbledore Dead or Alive? Other people posting ideas about why they think Dumbledore is alive are on topic.



Yes, Harry is certainly good at spotting the snitch!

I read on some thread somebody who had a signiture ;

"I may not agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it. (or something of the sort)....

Which SNICH did Harry see? THE GODEN SNITCH or just THE SNITCH (telltale).

[Morgan_Emerald]

Loooooong post - going several page back... seems I just can't keep up with you guys ;-)

---

Originally Posted by zgirnius

I take the investigation of the murder (allegedly by Sirius Black) of twelve Muggles and (supposedly) Peter Pettigrew as the model for Ministry investigations of high profile murders involving the Death Eaters. Harry Potter is an eyewitness who saw the Death Eater Severus Snape cast an Avada Kedavra at Dumbledore. Snape was then seen fleeing the grounds of Hogwarts in the company of other Death Eaters. Several witnesses saw the dead body. All that is left for the Ministry to do is apprehend Snape, as I see it.

Spot on! Sad but true…

---

Originally Posted by Morgan_Emerald

(1) We have never seen Snape interact without "the Harry filter" before so we just don't know what his behaviour could be like... In fact, this entire scene is already "out of character" because it is literary "out of place" and "out of context"!

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

Do you really think that Harry is blocking out the times Snape may have said "forgive me". We see and hear everything Harry does. We see the world through his eyes, but we don't get a distorted viewpoint, only we don't see what goes on beyond his viewpoint. Snape has not said "forgive me" in his classes. He is not that polite to his students. The wives of two DEs are given more respect by him.

I guess I did not phrase my statement carefully enough… I shouldn’t have used the words “Harry filter” because they are not in place here. My mistake. What I meant to say is that we haven’t seen Severus act in a “Harry-less” context; we know how he is with students (and here we can arugue about the Harry filter ;-), but we hardly know how he is when none of his “anger catalysts” (Harry, the Marauders) are present. We have no indication whatsoever how Severus deals with “guests” for example. The closest we can come to assessing Severus “Harry-less” mode is by analysing his interaction with the other teachers - and even then we haven’t much to go on although I do think he knows how to pay respect. So far, all scenes we have from Severus that are not Harry related (e.g. the memories during the Occlumency lesson, SWM) we have seen something rather “unexpected”, something that does not seem quite in line with the Snape we (by means of Harry) know. I am merely suggesting that Spinner’s End could be one of those instances.

Originally Posted by Morgan_Emerald

(2) Furthermore, I don't think Snape is completely unaware if social etiquette, especially after years and years spend in the nearness of Dumbledore! He might very well have modelled his own manner after Dumbledore's, what would be in line with my feeling that he "remodelled" his entire self quite thoroughly since he was at Hogwarts as a student...

Originally Posted by Paintball

I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t work for me. I get this mental picture of JKR writing the insult in Spinner’s end and thinking to herself: “I think I’ll have Snape apologize for the insult just like I’ll have Dumbledore do several times later in the book so my readers will realize that Snape has been around Dumbledore a lot the past years and has learned his manners from Dumbledore.” Instead I see her thinking: “After this clue, nobody can say I didn’t put any clues in about Dumbledore impersonating Snape.”

What is most important is that DIATSSISE clarified for me a confusing plot. I was confused before DIATSSISE and unconfused by DIATSSISE. If it was the other way around, I wouldn’t be so convinced I was correct.

Since this is a good Snape/Dead Dumbledore theory, I’ll keep discussing it on this thread unless I’m told to stop doing so by a moderator. Thanks Zgirnius for the kind words. I know you don’t accept the theory, but I also know you understand that no one poster should tell another poster to go away from a particular thread. Thanks

Paintball: I am not necessarily arguing aganst DIATSISSE. I find it an interesting theory, although I’m not quite convinced (yet? ;-). To me the “forgive me” argument just doesn’t seem as conclusive as you take it . That was what I was trying to point out here… The “forgive me” phrase is relatively new for me - I didn’t pick up on it as a possible clue before! I admit that it could be one, but I am hesitant to take it as such.

I like and wholly second what HedwigOwl adds to Snape’s use of “forgive me”:

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Paintball, I think that Snape's intention in using the phrase "forgive me" in the middle of an insult was just for show, not genuine, he wanted to appear polite and calm while throwing a zinger. Also, Snape's remark was in answer to an insult by Bella.

If, as you say, it was really Dumbledore, he would not have felt the need to reply in an insulting way. Snape did it only and precisely to annoy Bella. He could have just continued with the logical answer he was already giving her, but instead he chooses to toss in a polite insult. Totally Snape, in my opinion. He's always tossing around those type of comments.

This might well be the most important argument against your take on this matter

---

Originally Posted by Master_Feign

Another reason why I think Dumbledore to be dead, aside from the above, is becuase he is no longer "needed", I quote the above, because its not power that will save or destroy, or basically finish off the series... I don't think it will play into magic... I've been doing some reading, and magic is only a tool... I don't think its going to be a means to an end...

Oh, it will be power allright, but not something “destructive” like the Unforgivable Curses. I am absolutely convinced that Harry won’t be able to fight Dark with Dark, but he doesn’t seem to realise that yet. If he’s going to operate his “Power the Dark Lord knows not” (i.e. Luuuv ;-) he must surpass his (understandable but “destructive”) anger, hatred and thirst for revenge (sounds sappy, doesn’t it… well, I’m sure JKR will masterly write her way around that ;-) The thing is that Harry needs to figure this out on his own, only his true and wholehearted conviction will do the trick. Dumbledore has “armed” him by hinting at this over and over again, but there is only so much he can do… that is not to say that Dumbledore won’t make another “appearance” or whatever in book 7.

---

touchstone: I agree with you that the interviews are not conclusive. I do not doubt that she is sincere about “dead = dead” but that doesn’t mean that someone who only appears to be dead cannot come around again ;-) I’m still undecided on the Is Dumbledore Dead or Alive question. There are too many references to immortality and rebirth to deny the possibility (the phoenix for one and Dumbeldore’s involvement with Nicholas Flamel and the Philosopher’s Stone ) but I still incline towards “dead” myself. This has little to do with the interviews, though… At the end of HBP JKR has set a seemingly clear stage: Evil!Snape - Dead!Dumbledore. Pit of despair. Can’t get worse. Where do we go from here?

This is literary a “classical” construction: according to Aristotle Katharsis (purification, redemption) follows from / encompasses “eleos” (despair, sorrow) and “phobos” (fear). It is one of the phases of the Hero’s (and audience’s) development and definitely the phase that Harry is entering: he is practically at the lowest possible point deprived of his mentor - “the only one he ever feared” - betrayed by his mentor’s trustee “et tu, Brute” - torn by grief and anger and hatred and suffused with the urge for revenge so completely that he is slipping towards the Dark…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis Catharsis, Latin from the Greek Katharsis 'purification', is a sudden emotional breakdown or climax that constitutes overwhelming feelings of great pity, sorrow, laughter, or any extreme change in emotion that results in the renewal, restoration and revitalization for living. Catharsis is a form of emotional cleansing first defined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. It refers to the sensation, or literary affect, that would ideally overcome an audience upon finishing watching a tragedy. The fact that there existed those who could suffer a worse fate than them was to them a relief, and at the end of the play, they felt ekstasis (literally, astonishment), from which the modern word exstasis and ecstacy are derived. While seemingly related to schadenfreude, it is not, however, in the sense that the audience is not intentionally led to feel happy in light of others' misfortunes; in an invariant sense, their spirits are refreshed through having greater appreciation for life. In literary aesthetics catharsis is developed by the conjuction of stereotyped characters and unique or suprising actions. Throughout a play we do not expect the nature of a character to change significantly, rather pre-existing elements are revealed in a relatively straight-forward way as the character is confronted with unique actions in time. This can be clearly seen in Oedipus Rex where King Oedipus is confronted with more and more outrageous actions until emptying generated by the death of his mother-wife and his act of self-blinding. As a literary effect, catharsis should be compared with the equivalent effects for epic and poetic forms of kairosis and kenosis. […]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairosis Kairosis is the literary affect of fulfillment in time. This affect is normally associated with the epic/novel genre of literature, and can be understood by the analogy "as catharsis is to the dramatic, so kenosis is to the lyric, so kairosis is to the epic/novel." Kairosis is the feeling of integration experienced by the reader of the novel or epic form; it is experienced by the reader as the central protagonist's character and characterisation faces crisis and resolves itself into an explored and integrated personality. This typically occurs by challenging unique and interesting characters with typical and stereotyped actions that are generally applicable to all people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis Kenosis is a Greek word for emptiness, which is [most often] used as a theological term. […] The kenotic ethic is considered as the ethic of sacrifice [“pouring oneself out”, “emptying oneself” on behalf of others]. […] Kenosis is the affect (feeling) experienced by the reader of lyric or poetry forms. It is the experience of the emptying of the ego-personality of the reader into the immediate sensory manipulation of poetics. In this sense, kenosis inflicts an experience of timelessness upon the reader. […]

Enough Drama & Literature Class for now, I guess (I am a bit of a nerd, sorry ;-)

---

Interesting thoughts on Dumbledore’s possible “inability” to die, everyone! I personally like the theory where the water in the lake (perhaps in combination with the green potion?) actually was the Draught of Living Death (The Potion Dumbledore Drank - Clearly Not Green Thread , 1st post by Cryoz; really worth reading!). Not sure whether I completely buy it, but I found it one of the more interesting theories… I wonder, supposedly the Draught of Living Death magically induces a kind of sleep so effectively that is really makes it seem someone is dead… now, let’s just pretend for a moment that this is what happened, then, could it account for Dumbledore’s portrait - which was found, ah, sleeping?

---

hpfan101: good points about the transformation! It is clearly stated (somewhere ;-) that the major difference between a transformed Animagus and a transfigured person is that the Animagus keeps his human mind and traits, whilst a transfigured person actually becomes more of the animal in question and takes on the brains and traits of that animal. The connection between Dumbledore and his phoenixes (Fawkes and his Patronus ;-) is unusually strong, though… I can’t begin to grasp what it implies, but I don’t think that Dumbledore IS a phoenix (that is what you are actually saying, isn’t it, [b]Tane[/i]?)

Yeah, that fact about the switch between DA and Order of the Phoenix… fascinating! Glad she did it, I must say, it seems much more fitting this way! I wonder, what secrets can we learn from it…?

---

By the way, hpfan101, I am still planning to work on the scenario summary… I have to plough through about 30.000 words of very clever comments, though, and I should really put some more time and effort into finishing my Master Thesis if I don’t want to end up with 15.000 Euros worth of trouble at the end of this academic year ;-) Keeping up with al the interesting stuff on these threads seems hard enough at times already, unfortunately… You are all just so wonderful!

[Paintball]

Originally Posted by Morgan Emerald

Paintball: I am not necessarily arguing aganst DIATSISSE. I find it an interesting theory, although I’m not quite convinced (yet? ;-). To me the “forgive me” argument just doesn’t seem as conclusive as you take it . That was what I was trying to point out here… The “forgive me” phrase is relatively new for me - I didn’t pick up on it as a possible clue before! I admit that it could be one, but I am hesitant to take it as such.

I like and wholly second what HedwigOwl adds to Snape’s use of “forgive me”:


Quote:
Originally Posted by HedwigOwl
Paintball, I think that Snape's intention in using the phrase "forgive me" in the middle of an insult was just for show, not genuine, he wanted to appear polite and calm while throwing a zinger. Also, Snape's remark was in answer to an insult by Bella.

If, as you say, it was really Dumbledore, he would not have felt the need to reply in an insulting way. Snape did it only and precisely to annoy Bella. He could have just continued with the logical answer he was already giving her, but instead he chooses to toss in a polite insult. Totally Snape, in my opinion. He's always tossing around those type of comments.


This might well be the most important argument against your take on this matter

I don't see it as any type of argument, must less as an important argument. I'm not saying Snape doesn't have the ability to make snide remarks. He does, but so does Dumbledore. There are way too many snide remarks of Dumbledore's to list. Just go to Harry's trial in OOTP. BUT only Dumbledore has ever included in the insult an apology for the insult. This is an obvious clue to me. JKR didn't include this unique Dumbledore phrase in Spinner's end to show that Snape was trying to be polite. That argument makes no sense to me. When it dawned on me how obvious the clue was, I thought it would be obvious to everyone else. I was wrong, but that doesn't mean I've changed my mind about it being an obvious clue.

[rotsiepots]

Version seven time.

I'm excited!