...for good and Snape is truly on Riddle's side, but Charles has put some doubt in my mind.
He points out that when Dumbledore pleaded with Snape at the end, he didn't actually say "Don't kill me" or "Help me," but just "Please, Severus."
Charles' is convinced that if Draco Malfoy hadn't killed Dumbledore as instructed to by Riddle, Malfoy would die, and this is what Dumbledore and Snape were preventing. There was The Unbreakable Vow at the beginning of the book, after all.
This is a possibility, and though Dumbledore didn't much care for Draco, he'd definitely prefer to die himself if it'd save the boy's life.
OTOH, Dumbledore did say in his first "private lesson" with Harry that when he (Dumbledore) makes a mistake, it tends to be on a massive scale. (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) It's not outside the realm of possibility his trust of Snape will stand revealed as one of his few, rare mistakes in judgment.
Talk about opportunity missed, however! If I were Professor MacDonagall, now acting headmistress, one of my first official duties would have been to formally fire Snape, and expel Draco.
Actually, Draco's being in Hogwarts at all puzzled me. His father is in Azkaban, publicly revealed as a Deatheater, right? It's been awhile since the last book was published but I seem to recall, and what I've read in this book supports it, that Lucius Malfoy was shown to be a supporter of Riddle. So what the deuce was his kid still doing in Hogwarts? I'd have thought it'd have been made plain to his family that under the circumstances, Draco wouldn't be welcomed back.
And that's another thing . . . what's with "Lord Voldemort"? Oh, I certainly understand why he doesn't want to be known by the name of his nonmagic father - especially as the creep dumped his unborn son and his wife - but still, why pander to his vanity by referring to him with an unearned honorific? Being a follower of the Dark Lord, Voldemort, is far more appealing than being a follower of Tom Riddle, after all.
This was a good book . . . much better than the last one, which I didn't particularly care for and have never reread.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Several points:
1. I simply refuse to believe that Dumbledore would plea for his life. It would simply be out of character.
2. I believe that Snape made the 'unbreakable' vow because he and Dumbledore had already prepared the plan for Snape to 'kill' Dumbledore.
3. Dumbledore had stated, in every book since Book I, that he trusted Snape. Rowling put those statements in for a reason: not just to prove what an idiot Dumbledore was at the end.
4. One person on a message board pointed out that one should return to Professor Slughorn's first lesson, and re-read what he describes as being in the various cauldrons (love potion, etc). Every potion ended up being used during the course of the book except the 'draught of living death'. Was that what Dumbledore was drinking in that cave?
I think that Dumbledore has some grand plan going on. I think he already knew about the cave and what the liquid he had to drink was; in fact, I think that he had been to the cave with someone before: the someone who left the fake amulet.
Dumbledore is engaging in very deep magic that can only be done by a powerful wizard such as himself. Part of the spell includes the use of the deadly curse against the subject. If Snape had NOT used the avada kredavra (sic) spell against Dumbledore, then worse was awaiting Dumbledore (read again about how during his converstion with Draco Dumbledore kept slipping down the wall; he was rapidly losing strength).
Recall the Phoenix rising out of Dumbledore's tomb.
I believe, much like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, Dumbledore will make his appearance in the final book. We will then learn the nature of the ancient magic that Dumbledore was performing. Magic that will require for Dumbledore to come back the spider venon collected by Slughorn (there simply is no other reason for that episode being in the book; Harry could have gotten Slughorn's secret by other means, one would think). Also, prior to this book we never heard of the dead-people thingys (can't recall their names).
Was that Dumbledore Snape killed? Maybe the blackened arm/hand of Dumbledore's is a mark of a copy.
Hmm
You are definitely smarter'n the average bear, brother dear. ;^)
That's an extraordinarily good point about Dumbledore's doggedly insisting on Snape's trustworthiness in each book . . . for Snape to make a chump of him in book 6 doesn't seem likely, does it?
And the Unbreakable Vow has to come into play somehow, rather than being left hanging in the first chapter. As it stands there is no particular reason for it's having taken place.
No, I plumb forgot about the 'draught of living death'.
BTW, the 'dead people thingys' are Inferi. That I remember!
Are we ever told what exactly the Draught of Living Death is? I don't remember anything about it.
I don't think so, no. Probably it's one of the things that will be Made Clear in the final book.
Which ought to be a humdinger, considering all the loose ends Rowling has to tie off.
Dumbledore is really, really dead, folks, and is not going to pull a Gandalf. It's important to remember that Gandalf was a semi-divine being; Dumbledore is a mere man, though an exceptional one. But I do agree that it does not necessarily constitute betrayal on Snape's part. I think there were collusion there. I asolutely agree with legalsea that if Dumbledore trusted Snape, it was because he had a real reason to. I believe that like Tolkien, Rowling is making a distinction between charity and naivete, and does not intend to impute naivete to Dumbledore -- compare his incipient distrust of Riddle from very, very early on.
As for Malfoy still being at Hogwarts, I think that in the magical world, you don't get kicked out of school for having a criminal father, or being a slime, or for anything but breaking the school rules. The school is a pretty self-contained entity, and I think this reflects the historic position of British public schools -- the son of the worst swindler in Britain could stay at school, and be as nasty and bullying as all get-out into the bargain, as long as he didn't precisely violate the cardinal rules of the nearly independent school community.
I dunno, I thought the point about the blackened hand and arm might be valid....was it ever explained? Dumbledore kept saying he would, but I don't remember him doing so. Perhaps as Louis said, that was a sign of a clone or something.
Still think Malfoy ought to be expelled....on general principles if nothing else. ;^)
I'd be pretty surprised if Dumbledore does come back. I'm quite sure that he and Snape knew it might come to this and agreed on how to handle and I know that I can trust Dumbledore's assessment of Snape.
My eldest just informed me that the draught of living death was mentioned by Snape to Harry in the first book - at the beginning of Harry's very first potions class. It's pretty much what it sounds like. If you drink it, it makes you look dead until it wears off.
If Dumbledore really isn't around in the final book to tell his story to Harry, I'll bet he left a vial for the ever-helpful Pensieve that tells the whole story.
Why Dumbledore is dead: If Dumbledore were to return from the dead at the end of book seven and vanquish Vortemort, then the Harry Potter books become pointless. These seven books are about a young boy who grows into a powerful wizard and fulfills his destiny by destroying the most powerful evil wizard that the wizard world has ever known. Sorta like in the Lord of the Rings: it would have been pointless if Gandalf suddenly showed up at Mount Doom, said toa struggling Frodo: "Oh, give me that blasted Ring", and then without ceremony flung it into the volcano.
Why Dumbledore is not dead: Happy ending for all! I think it very likely that at the end of book seven Harry not only defeats Vortemort, but also 'saves' Dumbledore. Dumbledore not only trusts Snape, he also trusts Harry. He has tested Harry on several occasions during the books (book 1: he gave Harry the invisibility cloak just so he could go after the Sorcerer's Stone). Hence: Dumbledore is engaging in Ancient Magic (like the kind that keeps Vortemort from attacking Harry at his uncle/aunt's home) that required not only Snape to use the killing curse against him, but will also require Harry to do something to revive Dumbledore. Probably something to do with "Love" (which Dumbledore told Harry on several occasions is the most potent magic around) and that big spider's venon.
Plus, that blackened arm of Dumbledore's was never explained. Rowling drew our attention to it on multiple occasions in this book. Dumbledore said he would explain to Harry someday: he did not specify when ("Harry, I shall explain the state of my arm after you have vanquished Vordemort and revived my dead body"). I simply refuse to believe that at the end of book seven someone (like McConagall) will say to Harry "Oh, Dumbledore was never very good working with gas stoves", and so leave it at that.
So, I think Rowling is setting us up for a very happy ending. Vordemort dead, Dumbledore hale and hearty, Hagrid getting married to that French giant, Ron and Hermonie married, the Dursley's all dead, the Wesley's rich, the Malvoys poor, and Harry? Rowling has let it be known that she long ago wrote the final chapter of book seven, and even let us know that the last words in the book is "his scar". I suggest:
"Harry looked about at all of his friends, each completely immersed in happiness brought about by Harry's bravery. The future looked bright for all. Harry smiled broadly. Then he felt a slight twing of pain in his scar."
Shudder.
Louis
Hey, Anne...a favor? Could you tweak your blogger settings to show the date as well as the time on comments? It's in Settings > Comments > Comments Timestamp Format. I bet it'll make you happier, too! ;-)
Surely threatening to kill the headmaaster, even if one doesn't follow through, would be grounds for dismissal from the school?
That was a good idea, Valerie...thanks!
And I absolutely agree....threatening to kill the headmaster ought to be grounds for expulsion. ;^)
Okay, good point about killing the headmaster. Even attacking the headmaster (Expelliarmus!) would probably have been sufficient.
But of course they don't have to expel Draco if he never comes back, right? I somehow don't think he was coming back...
Dumbledore lives!
We'll know come July, won't we?
I'm sort of thinking you and Louis are right, though.
Post a Comment