Best Theory on the Snape, Dumbledore and the Tower Incident
Well! Felicity's done it again with this must-read piece entitled "Why Severus Snape Cast a Real Avada Kedavra on the Tower and Why It Wasn't Murder". This piece ties everything together quite nicely, drawing from many sources such as the now-famous "Stoppered Death Theory" (attr. to Cathy Liesner) and from her own insightful observations. Here are a few snips:...Snape was able to AK Dumbledore on the tower without committing murder (since Dumbledore was already dead; Snape no more murdered Dumbledore with the AK than Nicholas Flamel committed murder-suicide by destroying the Philosopher's Stone. What Snape did was unstopper Dumbledore's actual death and allowed it to proceed. That is why Dumbledore could morally ask Snape to AK him and why Snape could morally comply....)Another great clue she picked up on from Hermione on Dumbledore's dead hand: ...[W]hen Hermione saw Dumbledore's hand at the start of term feast in September, she said, "But there are some injuries you can't cure . . . old curses . . . and there are poisons without antidotes. . . ." (HBP8) Dumbledore later confirmed that a terrible curse upon the ring had damaged his hand but that Snape's timely actions had prevented his death, so we should consider her comment a hint that we were going to see a poison that had no antidote.Great stuff. This is as good as it gets in explaining why killing Dumbledore is not murder in the context of the story. I have a short post coming out to compliment this musing upon the principle of the "double-effect" which I started the other day, but Felicity's theory IS the must read for those on the Good-Snape side. Go read it now!! [UPDATED: I modified some of the original language because Felicity wanted to be clear that she didn't originate the "stoppered death theory."] |
Comments on "Best Theory on the Snape, Dumbledore and the Tower Incident"
-
Anonymous said ... (August 06, 2006 2:25 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (August 06, 2006 2:39 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 07, 2006 11:58 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 07, 2006 5:34 PM)
:
post a commentThank you, Pauli, but Stoppered Death is sadly not my theory. It belongs to Cathy Liesner, who was John Grangers co-moderator at the B&N University discussion of HBP last summer. I didn't participate, unfortunately, but people like Janet Batchler blogged the Stoppered Death theory, which is where I read it for the first time.
I'll take credit for fleshing it out and tying some threads together, but all I really did is explain the brilliance of other peoples' ideas.
Felicity, I know you didn't come-up with it originally. I think a lot of people remembered the first potions class, especially when the bezoar came up in Slughorn's class. I myself thought of "I can stopper death" before I'd read Granger on the topic who was the first I'd read. I should have said your "piece" not your theory, don't want to mispace credit. Also you have a lot in here other than "stoppered-death". Felix felicis would explain how DD found all those traps so quickly.
I'll update the post though to avoid confusion.
I finally read it ... and really liked it ... I particularly liked the noting of the waiting a month timing-wise (of course, my definition of narrative is all about time, so what would you expect ... one of my fave songs to sing and play on guitar by Tom Waits is simply called "time" :) )
I also particularly liked the close observations on Felix being used and the comment on "Oho!" as a sort of verbal/aural clue to Slughorn's possible supplying of the potion, rather than it actually being Sluggo in disguise (I thought some of gumshoes eveidence might be a little stretched thin or inconclusive ... mainly the "doubling" thing, because we have seen DD use repetition before etc)
I had forgotten Frank Bryce in the "how the AK hits people" evidence when I went through AK incidences (particularly in response to the "The AK just kills you, it doesn't lift you up too ... he had to have been using levicorpus" argument) I think in addition to Cedirc I used the Riddle family being found just looking terror stricken and still in their dinner clothing ... but no noted change in body position etc than if they were just (but this was only a probabilty of the AK, although a high probability)
One of the things I was thinking about though, in reading your post, was why Frank Bryce slumped and Cedric and DD flew ... and I think it may have to do with the disposition of spell-caster. Voldy's voice is always described as "high and cold," which indicates personal detachment, apathy and calous. You might say it is a more "pure" form of malice that is more detached
My own thought is that (as I went into a little in my initial response to Pauli's post on the AK, the AK47, and 24) in the "physics" of Rowling's world of magic (what Red Hen calls the potterverse, and I know that on this particular area I get closer to her style of picking it apart heavily, a style which I know can be jarring for some, and sometimes for all ... but I really do think it a worhtwhile venture in certain cases) spell-casting involves an amplification of psychic (soul/life force) energy through the wand. As I said in my comment on the AK-24, I think in a way tha caster puts "part of themselves" into the curse (as evidence I would point to the priori incantatem spell ... we see it used in the beginning of GOF to find out that Harry's wand was indeed the one used to conjure the dark mark, but that mini-mark just hovers, like the real mark ... the shades that come from Voldy's wand in the graveyard walk and talk and interact with Harry on their own. On the "physics" level I think it is the fact that spell-casting involves an investment of the caster's life force [soul/psyche/psychic energy/nephesh/anima ... take your pick] that opens the door for some of the victim's personality to flow back into the wand, kind of like a mini-ghost, or more actually like the whole thing of wizarding photos ... such as the photo Harry trying to get away from the photo Lockheart, even though the real Harry put up with it)... in short, maybe Bryce slumped because of Voldy's "cold-heart" whereas Cedric flew because of WT's heart which was maniacly fearful of coldy-voldy (WT had to "screech the word's to the night") and DD flew because Snape's heart was in anguish.
On the subject of the "effects" of the AK for Snape ... I definitely now think it possible that he cast an AK with being culpable of murder. But I also still think it important not to overlook the fact of the objective evil of killing. ... of course I also think it is dangerous to go too far in the direction that is opposite the one I am warning against: I am warning against "subjectivism" but there is an equal danger of "objectivism" or "legalism" (Ie the MOM). Snapes sunjective disposition definitely would impact the and the nature of the mark that using an AK might leave on the soul ... in other words, maybe DD's hope is that Voldy would be hasty and think he saw the mark of cold blooded murder [or maybe hot blooded murder... back to the slumping vs flying thing) when all that is really there is really there is the unavoidable mark of killing as part of "pulling the plug at the opportune moment" (and this, I think, would also sort of fall under the whole "slight of hand" motif too :) )
As far as the "stain" thing, I just wanted to note that I have seen it elsewhere by person's who, as a class at least, generally study the history of motifs and images in art ... ie film-makers. In "End of Days," to get into the "dark temple" full of the gad guys Schartzenager's Jericho character has to get passed the blind gatekeeper with the fine sense of psychic smell ... the keeper sniffs at him and says "yes ... you have much hate in your heart" and this is how he gets in to save the girl from the dark mating and all.
This is the type of thing used alot with the "amoral" (as opposed to "immoral") hero type ... like A Tale of Two Cities and "if God can't help them, maybe the devil can" ... meaning himself
sorry ... amazing how accidentally dropping three little letters can not just turn what you're saying in nonsense, but actually into the opposite of what you meant to say ... I meant to say I can now see SS casting an AK withOUT being culpable of murder.