My original intent was to re-read Deathly Hallows before I put up the review. It's not going to happen.
So, I was ecstatic to get it, I read it in a day, I found the prospect of the series' end terribly bittersweet. And, I was disappointed. My complaints are largely the same as those you've probably already read. Large sections were directionless: it's hard to defend close to four-hundred pages of futile wandering around the English countryside. This is indicative of a larger problem with Book 7: it made the better Book 6 largely irrelevant. The horcrux hunt we all expected was non-existent: each was found and destroyed largely by contrivance, shucked for the convoluted story of the Hallows. After 6 books in which everything tied together so nicely, where each book was dependent on its formers in wonderful and surprising ways, we got tossed a story that was as unexplained as it was unnecessarily independent. This is especially frustrating in light of the alternate stories we might tell. Consider this scenario: Harry gets his hands on a Penseive, shows Ron and Hermione the pertinent details from his sessions with Dumbledore last year, and then they spend meaningful time figuring out the possible object and location of the horcruxes before going out after them. Exciting and purposeful, right? It seems like we really can tell stories better than the one we got, and I never thought we'd be able to do that.
Another problem: with the exception of Dobby's, which was achingly tragic, the deaths in the novel were horribly executed. Rowling tells us that Hedwig's demise was to show us the arbitrary evil of war. But she has this all wrong: it's fantasy, we know that Voldemort is bad and that war is horrible. Killing Hedwig isn't indicative the terribleness of war because fantasy necessarily isn't indicative of real war, that's part of the reason we read it. It can hint at it, can recall it, but never represent it. Further, and this was inexcusable, Moody, Collin Creevy, Lupin, Tonks, and Fred are all killed, literally, in a matter of sentences. This of course contradicts Rowling's assertion about the awfulness of war: we don't have time to appreciate their deaths. Also, I feel like there was a real responsibility to give us the opportunity to grieve over characters to whom we became very attached, and this was irredeemably neglected.
Finally, I thought that the ending was rather irritatingly Christian: Harry dies, and literally everyone is saved from Voldemort? I don't like it. If Rowling's overriding preoccupation is rejection of bigotry (my intuitions and her comments suggest that it is) than she should have avoided linking her protagonist to the figurehead of an institution that is in many ways inherently bigoted itself.
On to the hubub surrounding the Dumbledore's ousting. There are two fundamental questions here. The first is whether or not authors should ever engage in post-publication background-giving: is it better just to let the text live on its own? A lot of commentary says yes, and that's fine. The question, however, becomes moot the instant the author begins to talk about her characters beyond the books. It becomes then a question of who has ultimate ownership of a text: the reader or the author. I think that, in the case of background information, it is clearly the author. That is, if Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, he is. We have no license to say "no, I read him as straight, so he's straight." That statement is wrong. However, the author can not tell us how to interpret their work. She can tell us that Dumbledore is gay, but has no recourse to order us to read the series as a big Christian allegory. Even if that was her intent, it is our interpretive right to read the text differently.
A final note on this: if she had said "Dumbledore was straight, he had a girlfriend who broke his heart, and that's why he's single," there would be no extensive coverage, no blogging about it. I don't want to suggest that everyone writing about the issue is a homophobe, but rather wish to note the impact that social issue has on the way literary criticism runs. It's interesting, at least.
And that is all I will have to say for quite some time on a series that, in the end, I will remember with great fondness, and one to which I shall return. Many times.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Harry's Last
Briefly: First, I'll be posting my much belated review of Deathly Hallows in the next several days, stay tuned. Second, check this out: the lameity of the Catholic church is ubiquitous, it seems. Utterly ridiculous.
Monday, October 1, 2007
A Great Loss
This is horribly late, but I wish to add mine to the many respects being paid to the late Robert Jordan. A true genius and also by all accounts a wonderful man, he will be missed. "Like the wind he came, like the wind he touched everything, and like the wind he was gone."
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
About Those Predictions
Quite obviously, I was, again, incorrect in many of my predictions. I'll probably pull them at the same time the review of Deathly Hallows will go up, which will be sometime in the next couple of weeks. For now, suffice to say that I thought it was pretty good--great at times, though at others surprisingly weak. I need to reread it, I think.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Part III
The next question has bothered readers since it surfaced after the release of GoF. The answer seems likely to be highly important—it’s probably the key to defeating Voldemort after the destruction of the Horcruxes. Harry speaking to Dumbledore and Sirius, telling them what happened in the graveyard during Voldemort’s return:
“’He said my blood would make him stronger than if he’d used someone else’s. He said the protection my mother left in me—he’d have it too. And he was right, he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face.’ For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore’s eyes.” (Gof, Ch. 36, pg. 696).
Why this gleam of triumph? The most likely answer is that Voldemort now carries blood that is infused with the thing he hates most in the world—love. This may potentially be weakening him, though he remains unaware and sustained because of the Horcruxes. Once those are destroyed, however, I think he could well find himself inexplicably and dangerously sapped of strength by the conflict between the good in Harry’s blood and his own wholly evil nature. There’s also the thought that the force of good in Harry’s blood will make Voldemort unable to split his soul further, something he would surely attempt to do if and when he discovers that his Horcruxes are destroyed.
This next question comes directly from Rowling—it was her response to the question “What is a question that you haven’t been asked, that you should have been?”
Her response: “Why did Dumbledore have James’ invisibility cloak at the time of the James’ death, given that he (Dumbledore) can make himself invisible without the use of a cloak?”
She went on to say, “there is a significant, even crucial answer.”
I’m not too sure about what that answer is. I don’t think James gave it to Dumbledore after discovering that Voldemort had discovered the Potter’s hiding place: he would have wanted to stay and defend Lilly and Harry. That means that Dumbledore must have had the cloak before the Potters were betrayed. There are a few possible explanations for this.
Perhaps another member of the Order borrowed the cloak, and returned it to Dumbledore after the Potters were killed? This kind of borrowing seems to happen quite regularly in OotP, but I don’t think it’s the right explanation for the question at had; Dumbledore tells Harry rather explicitly that James “left it in my (Dumbledore’s) possession.” (SS, Ch. 17, pg. 299).
That seems to imply that James actively sought to give Dumbledore the cloak. My only thought is that he may have hidden Gryffindor’s sword in the cloak, and then sent both to Dumbledore (by way of Aunt Petunia?), which would have prevented Voldemort from obtaining it. Even if James hadn’t known about Horcruxes, he may have known that Voldemort was after founder’s items, and in hiding the sword in the cloak and giving it to Dumbledore, he was doubly ensuring that Voldemort would be foiled. That is another bit of wild speculation, however. There’s nothing to even say that the Potter’s had the sword. But if they had, they would have wanted to keep Voldemort from it simply on principle, if nothing else.
Another plausible train of thought is that someone was hidden under the cloak at Godric’s Hollow in the in the moments preceding the Potters’ murder. This would serve to tie up another couple of loose ends, including the question “how did Voldemort get his wand back?”.
Next, two questions about Lily Potter.
First, Rowling tells us that Harry “has his mother’s eyes, and that’s very important in a future book.” I don’t think this has been answered fully yet. Harry does get Professor Slughorn’s real memory of Riddle asking about Horcruxes in part because of this: “‘You’re a good boy’, said Professor Slughorn, tears trickling down his fat cheeks into his walrus mustache. ‘And you’ve got her eyes…just don’t think too badly of me once you’ve seen it…” (HBP, Ch. 22, pg. 491). There’s a chance this is all Rowling meant by her quote, but I sort of doubt it. The acquisition of the memory is unquestionably important, but I think we can contribute it as much to Felix Felicis as Harry having his mother’s eyes. There’s some thought that Lily was an accomplished Legilimens (which requires eye-contact), and that Harry, in inheriting her eyes, will have inherited this ability, but there’s no hard evidence for this. It’s an interesting possibility, however. Legilimency would surely help him in his Horcrux hunt.
Second, why on earth didn’t Voldemort want to kill Lily? It’s totally inconsistent with his character, and yet the fact has been emphasized several times throughout the series:
“I killed your father first, and he put up a courageous fight…but your mother needn’t have died…she was trying to protect you...” (SS, Ch. 17, pg. 294).
Next, from PoA, Harry’s memory of his parents death, which the Dementors cause him to relive:
“Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!”
“Stand aside, you silly girl, stand aside now…”
(PoA Ch. 9, pg. 134).
I have no explanation for this. Voldemort is pure evil, there’s nothing in the text to indicate he would do anything except kill Lily to get her out of the way. But he doesn’t, and that doesn’t make sense. The best and only real theory I’ve read is that Snape had feelings for Lily and asked Voldemort not to kill her, but this seems like it would almost certainly compromise Snape’s cover, and I doubt Voldemort would heed such a request in any event.
Next, I think that Peter Pettigrew is going to be very important—Dumbledore speaking:
“‘Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt. When one wizard saves another wizard’s life, it creates a certain bond between them…and I’m very much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter…the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew’s life.’” (PoA, Ch. 22, pg. 311).
There’s only one book left in which Pettigrew can repay this debt: he must do so in book 7. I think one way in which he may do so is in saving Harry or one of his friends from the werewolf Fenrir Greyback. You kill werewolves with silver, and Pettigrew has a silver hand.
A different thought I’ve had is the striking similarity between Dumbledore’s comments here and something Gandalf tells Frodo Baggins when they’re discussing Gollum. Frodo says he wishes Bilbo had killed him when he had the chance, and Gandalf replies:
“My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and
when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.”
There’s a certain likeness between Pettigrew and Gollum: both are somewhat wretched, friendless, and bound to masters they have no real wish to be tied to. And I think there is a chance that Pettigrew, like Gollum, will dictate a surprising end to that master. It’s something to consider, at any rate.
That’s the last important question we can raise with any sort of solid text behind it. These next few are answerable only on a purely speculative basis, but they’re worth trying.
First, will Hogwarts reopen? I think so. I don’t see McGonagall, any of the other staff, being the types to willingly become victims of an atmosphere of fear. It’s an act of defiance to keep the school open, and they’ll do just that. Besides, Dumbledore would have wanted to keep the school open, and that will be a powerful motivating factor.
Even if they do reopen, we know that Harry, Ron and Hermione have no intention of attending. I do however think that they will revisit the school—as the greatest single depository of magical knowledge in Britain, and as a place where members of the Order are concentrated, it’s an ideal headquarters for the trio to use in between Horcrux finding missions.
Second, who’s going to end up with whom? Rowling answered this question once and for all in interview:
I will say, that yes, I personally feel - well it's going to be clear once people have read book six. I mean….it’s done, isn’t it? We know. Yes, we do now know that it's Ron and Hermione.
Third, who’s going to die? We know from Rowling that at least two characters will, and that one character she had originally intended to kill “got a reprieve.” The only sure thing here is Voldemort: I don’t think Rowling would leave the us, and the wizarding world in the state of suspense and fear that would remain with Voldemort alive at the end of the series, nor do I think Voldemort’s going to win. After that, your guess is as good as mine. Personally, I don’t see Harry, Ron, or Hermione being killed. Most of the Harry-will-die thinkers tend to prescribe to some kind of Harry is a Horcrux theory, which I just disagree with. If Snape is good, and I think he is, he might die a redemptive death saving someone from the Order. I also worry about the Weasleys: Mrs. Weasley’s boggart in OotP seemed like a worrying bit of foreshadowing to me.
Finally, what do the covers of the American and British versions depict, respectively? I think that the British version is clearly Gringotts: all that treasure is a pretty glaring clue. Also, Harry’s arm looks rather burned—remember Hagrid telling him that dragons were rumored to be guarding some of the higher security vaults? As for the American edition—this definitely seems to be the final battle. It looks to me as if it’s taking place behind the veil Sirius falls through in the Department of Mysteries. The most obvious pointer to this is the curtain/veil around the edges of the picture, and that certainly looks to be an amphitheatre they’re battling in; the veil is in an amphitheatre. Those shadowy figures would then be the whisperers Harry and Luna hear in OotP (is Sirius among them?), and that wreckage is the crumbled remains of the archway.
“’He said my blood would make him stronger than if he’d used someone else’s. He said the protection my mother left in me—he’d have it too. And he was right, he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face.’ For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore’s eyes.” (Gof, Ch. 36, pg. 696).
Why this gleam of triumph? The most likely answer is that Voldemort now carries blood that is infused with the thing he hates most in the world—love. This may potentially be weakening him, though he remains unaware and sustained because of the Horcruxes. Once those are destroyed, however, I think he could well find himself inexplicably and dangerously sapped of strength by the conflict between the good in Harry’s blood and his own wholly evil nature. There’s also the thought that the force of good in Harry’s blood will make Voldemort unable to split his soul further, something he would surely attempt to do if and when he discovers that his Horcruxes are destroyed.
This next question comes directly from Rowling—it was her response to the question “What is a question that you haven’t been asked, that you should have been?”
Her response: “Why did Dumbledore have James’ invisibility cloak at the time of the James’ death, given that he (Dumbledore) can make himself invisible without the use of a cloak?”
She went on to say, “there is a significant, even crucial answer.”
I’m not too sure about what that answer is. I don’t think James gave it to Dumbledore after discovering that Voldemort had discovered the Potter’s hiding place: he would have wanted to stay and defend Lilly and Harry. That means that Dumbledore must have had the cloak before the Potters were betrayed. There are a few possible explanations for this.
Perhaps another member of the Order borrowed the cloak, and returned it to Dumbledore after the Potters were killed? This kind of borrowing seems to happen quite regularly in OotP, but I don’t think it’s the right explanation for the question at had; Dumbledore tells Harry rather explicitly that James “left it in my (Dumbledore’s) possession.” (SS, Ch. 17, pg. 299).
That seems to imply that James actively sought to give Dumbledore the cloak. My only thought is that he may have hidden Gryffindor’s sword in the cloak, and then sent both to Dumbledore (by way of Aunt Petunia?), which would have prevented Voldemort from obtaining it. Even if James hadn’t known about Horcruxes, he may have known that Voldemort was after founder’s items, and in hiding the sword in the cloak and giving it to Dumbledore, he was doubly ensuring that Voldemort would be foiled. That is another bit of wild speculation, however. There’s nothing to even say that the Potter’s had the sword. But if they had, they would have wanted to keep Voldemort from it simply on principle, if nothing else.
Another plausible train of thought is that someone was hidden under the cloak at Godric’s Hollow in the in the moments preceding the Potters’ murder. This would serve to tie up another couple of loose ends, including the question “how did Voldemort get his wand back?”.
Next, two questions about Lily Potter.
First, Rowling tells us that Harry “has his mother’s eyes, and that’s very important in a future book.” I don’t think this has been answered fully yet. Harry does get Professor Slughorn’s real memory of Riddle asking about Horcruxes in part because of this: “‘You’re a good boy’, said Professor Slughorn, tears trickling down his fat cheeks into his walrus mustache. ‘And you’ve got her eyes…just don’t think too badly of me once you’ve seen it…” (HBP, Ch. 22, pg. 491). There’s a chance this is all Rowling meant by her quote, but I sort of doubt it. The acquisition of the memory is unquestionably important, but I think we can contribute it as much to Felix Felicis as Harry having his mother’s eyes. There’s some thought that Lily was an accomplished Legilimens (which requires eye-contact), and that Harry, in inheriting her eyes, will have inherited this ability, but there’s no hard evidence for this. It’s an interesting possibility, however. Legilimency would surely help him in his Horcrux hunt.
Second, why on earth didn’t Voldemort want to kill Lily? It’s totally inconsistent with his character, and yet the fact has been emphasized several times throughout the series:
“I killed your father first, and he put up a courageous fight…but your mother needn’t have died…she was trying to protect you...” (SS, Ch. 17, pg. 294).
Next, from PoA, Harry’s memory of his parents death, which the Dementors cause him to relive:
“Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!”
“Stand aside, you silly girl, stand aside now…”
(PoA Ch. 9, pg. 134).
I have no explanation for this. Voldemort is pure evil, there’s nothing in the text to indicate he would do anything except kill Lily to get her out of the way. But he doesn’t, and that doesn’t make sense. The best and only real theory I’ve read is that Snape had feelings for Lily and asked Voldemort not to kill her, but this seems like it would almost certainly compromise Snape’s cover, and I doubt Voldemort would heed such a request in any event.
Next, I think that Peter Pettigrew is going to be very important—Dumbledore speaking:
“‘Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt. When one wizard saves another wizard’s life, it creates a certain bond between them…and I’m very much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter…the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew’s life.’” (PoA, Ch. 22, pg. 311).
There’s only one book left in which Pettigrew can repay this debt: he must do so in book 7. I think one way in which he may do so is in saving Harry or one of his friends from the werewolf Fenrir Greyback. You kill werewolves with silver, and Pettigrew has a silver hand.
A different thought I’ve had is the striking similarity between Dumbledore’s comments here and something Gandalf tells Frodo Baggins when they’re discussing Gollum. Frodo says he wishes Bilbo had killed him when he had the chance, and Gandalf replies:
“My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and
when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.”
There’s a certain likeness between Pettigrew and Gollum: both are somewhat wretched, friendless, and bound to masters they have no real wish to be tied to. And I think there is a chance that Pettigrew, like Gollum, will dictate a surprising end to that master. It’s something to consider, at any rate.
That’s the last important question we can raise with any sort of solid text behind it. These next few are answerable only on a purely speculative basis, but they’re worth trying.
First, will Hogwarts reopen? I think so. I don’t see McGonagall, any of the other staff, being the types to willingly become victims of an atmosphere of fear. It’s an act of defiance to keep the school open, and they’ll do just that. Besides, Dumbledore would have wanted to keep the school open, and that will be a powerful motivating factor.
Even if they do reopen, we know that Harry, Ron and Hermione have no intention of attending. I do however think that they will revisit the school—as the greatest single depository of magical knowledge in Britain, and as a place where members of the Order are concentrated, it’s an ideal headquarters for the trio to use in between Horcrux finding missions.
Second, who’s going to end up with whom? Rowling answered this question once and for all in interview:
I will say, that yes, I personally feel - well it's going to be clear once people have read book six. I mean….it’s done, isn’t it? We know. Yes, we do now know that it's Ron and Hermione.
Third, who’s going to die? We know from Rowling that at least two characters will, and that one character she had originally intended to kill “got a reprieve.” The only sure thing here is Voldemort: I don’t think Rowling would leave the us, and the wizarding world in the state of suspense and fear that would remain with Voldemort alive at the end of the series, nor do I think Voldemort’s going to win. After that, your guess is as good as mine. Personally, I don’t see Harry, Ron, or Hermione being killed. Most of the Harry-will-die thinkers tend to prescribe to some kind of Harry is a Horcrux theory, which I just disagree with. If Snape is good, and I think he is, he might die a redemptive death saving someone from the Order. I also worry about the Weasleys: Mrs. Weasley’s boggart in OotP seemed like a worrying bit of foreshadowing to me.
Finally, what do the covers of the American and British versions depict, respectively? I think that the British version is clearly Gringotts: all that treasure is a pretty glaring clue. Also, Harry’s arm looks rather burned—remember Hagrid telling him that dragons were rumored to be guarding some of the higher security vaults? As for the American edition—this definitely seems to be the final battle. It looks to me as if it’s taking place behind the veil Sirius falls through in the Department of Mysteries. The most obvious pointer to this is the curtain/veil around the edges of the picture, and that certainly looks to be an amphitheatre they’re battling in; the veil is in an amphitheatre. Those shadowy figures would then be the whisperers Harry and Luna hear in OotP (is Sirius among them?), and that wreckage is the crumbled remains of the archway.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
DH Divination II
The Horcruxes
I’m going to trust Dumbledore, mostly because I don’t really see a legitimate reason to disagree with him, and also because he’s awesome. That means that there are six horcruxes, two of which have been destroyed, and one of which I believe the wheeabouts are known (see below). The remaining horcruxes must be artifacts with significant historical grandeur (e.g. Founder’s items), and must be hidden in places of personal significance to Voldemort/Riddle. We’re not going to be dealing with Harry or his scar as a Horcrux: Dumbledore didn’t believe this to be the case, and the mechanics for it are shaky, especially when there is better support in the books for Dumbledore’s suppositions.
The Diary (Created circa December 1943. Destroyed May 1993)
Destroyed by Harry in CoS. I don’t think it’s going play an important role in DH. It is interesting to note, however, that Harry doesn’t really have a lot of trouble dehorcruxifying the diary (he just stabs it with the fang), whereas Dumbledore’s hand is destroyed when he dehorcruxifies the ring.
The Ring (Probably created before December of 1944. Destroyed June/July 1996)
Destroyed by Dumbledore in HBP. It’s not going to be important in DH.
The Locket (Probably created in 1947, the year it was stolen. Possibly
destroyed by R.A.B. in 1979)
The first (possibly) undestroyed horcrux is the one we know the most about. Retrieved by “R.A.B.” from the cave at the end of HBP, who replaced it with the fake containing this note (HBP, Ch. 28, pg, 609, US Hardcover):
To the Dark Lord
I know I will be dead long before you read this
But I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret.
I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can.
I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more. ~R.AB.
I think R.A.B. is probably Regulus Black—Sirius’ brother who joined the Death Eaters, before apparently getting cold feet and breaking ranks, eventually being tracked down and killed by his former compatriots. The A possibly stands for Astracus, the name of Regulus and Sirius’ grandfather
I also think we’ve seen the Locket before, in #12 Grimmauld Place (this supports the Regulus theory), when Harry and Co. are cleaning out the house in OotP: “They found an unpleasant looking silver instrument…a musical box that emitted a faintly sinister tune…a heavy locket that none of them could open..”(OotP, Ch. 6, pg 108 British Hardcover).
Next, I think that the locket is among the things sold by Mundungus Fletcher to the barman of the Hog’s Head in Hogsmeade early in HBP:
“The street was not very busy…the exceptions were two men a little ahead of them. One was very tall and thin…Harry recognized the barman who worked in the other Hogsmeade pub, the Hog’s Head. As Harry, Ron and Hermione drew closer, the barman drew his cloak more tightly around his neck and walked away..”(HBP, Ch. 12, pg 245, US Hardcover). More tightly around his neck, as if to hide what he was wearing there? I think so.
A page on is the confirmation that the seller, Mundungus, is selling Black family heirlooms from Grimmauld place. (Harry speaking): “You took that from Sirius’ house!”(HBP, 246).
I just think that this is far too coincidental and suspicious, when you consider the fact that this barman is in fact Dumbledore’s brother Aberforth. The proof for that:
The first time we hear about Aberforth is in GoF. (Dumbledore speaking):
“My own brother, Aberforth, was prosecuted for practicing inappropriate charms on a goat.” (GoF, Ch. 24, pg 454, US Hardcover).
This is seemingly insignificant, but then we see Aberforth again in OotP, the first time in Moody’s picture of the original Order, but much more significantly at the recruitment meeting for Dumbledore’s Army, which takes place in the Hog’s Head:
“The Hog’s Head…smelled strongly of something that might have been goats.” (OotP, 299), and then “the barman sidled towards them out of the back room. He was a grumpy looking old man with a great deal of long grey hair and beard. He was tall and thin and looked vaguely familiar to Harry.” (OotP, 300). He is familiar, of course, because he looks like Dumbledore.
Finally, a piece of evidence in HBP, from the scene in which Voldemort asks Dumbledore for the Defense Against the Dark Arts Job (Voldemort speaking—Dumbledore has just revealed that he knows about the Death Eaters Voldemort has waiting for him in Hogsmeade):
“You are as omniscient as ever, Dumbledore.”
“Oh no, merely friendly with the local barman,” said Dumbledore lightly. (HBP, Ch. 20, pg 445)
This theory was subsequently confirmed by Rowling in an interview:
Q: Why is the barman of the Hog’s Head vaguely familiar to Harry? Is he Dumbledore’s brother?
A: Why do you think that it is Aberforth? [Questioner: Various clues. He smells of goats and he looks a bit like Dumbledore]. I was quite proud of that clue…. well yes, obviously {he is}.
Now, I’m not sure whether or not Aberforth recognized the locket as a horcrux, or if he just knew it to be a valuable old artifact, but either way, everything points to him making Harry’s Horcrux search easier.
A couple of final notes: If Regulus was the one who stole the locket, we have to ask who was with him (someone had to drink the potion, or help Regulus drink it). I think the best answer here is Kreacher: Regulus would not have had a problem forcing a house-elf to drink the potion. This would also perhaps explain some of Kreacher’s insanity, and also provides a neat explanation for how the locket was saved from Sirius’ purge of the house—Kreacher saved it, knowing its importance. Also, we don’t know whether or not Regulus was able to destroy the locket as a Horcrux before he was tracked down. I think that the fact that nobody can open it points towards him being unable to destroy it. If that’s the case, I think that Harry’s Parseltongue abilities will be the key to unlocking and finishing it.
D. Hufflepuff’s Cup (Again, probably created in 1947. Still hidden)
The first of the truly lost Horcruxes. Stolen by Riddle, working at the time for Borgin and Burke’s, from Hepzibah Smith, descendant of Helga Hufflepuff, and, I think, a relative of Zacharias, the irritating Hufflepuff member of the D.A who shares her surname.
I think that it is most likely buried, given Hufflepuff’s earthy associations (their mascot is a badger, their Head is the Herbology Professor, etc). Also given Dumbledore’s hiding place requisites, I think a good place to start looking would be the country fields in which Riddle first discovered he was a Parselmouth. We learn about this from Dumbledore’s memory of his first visit to young Riddle in the orphanage. (Riddle Speaking):
“I can speak to snakes. I found out when we’ve been to the country on trips—they find me, they whisper to me.” (HBP, Ch. 13, pg. 274).
This ability would come to be of great import to him both as a reminder of his connection with Salazar Slytherin, and as the key to the Chamber of Secrets.
I think that Nifflers (the treasure-finding, burrowing creatures we meet in OotP) would really be a great way for them to find a buried cup. I’m not sure how they would deal with any enchantments guarding it, however. It’s possible that they could be magically immune to such protections.
E. Mystery Horcrux: Something of Ravenclaw’s (Date of theft/creation unknown)
Again, if Dumbledore says that there is no Grffyindor relic other than the sword, and that the sword is not a horcrux, then I’m inclined to believe him. That means that the final artifact Horcrux belonged to Ravenclaw. I’m of two minds here.
My first inclination was that the item was Ravenclaw’s wand, and that we had seen it before: in Ollivander’s shop window:
“A single wand lay on a faded purple cushion in the dusty window.” (SS, Ch. 5 pg 82, US Hardcover). Purple is of course Ravenclaw’s color.
Coupled with Ollivander’s mysterious disappearance at the beginning of HBP, it’s a plausible working theory, but there are some difficulties. First, if the wand has been on display in Ollivander’s shop window, its not exactly been hidden, has it? Did Ollivander find it after it had been hidden? If so, how? Ollivander is a very old wizard of unknown magical prowess…would he really be able to find the wandcrux and beat whatever was protecting it? Maybe, but I’m not sure, and I’d be surprised if, of the six Horcruxes, two were discovered by characters not named Harry or Dumbledore. And if Ollivander didn’t find it, how did it end up in his window?
Additionally, there is a different but equally good explanation for Ollivander’s disappearance: Voldemort has ordered him to make a new wand; a wand with which he will be able to duel Harry without worrying about Priori Incantatem.
The second possibility I see then for the Ravenclaw Horcrux is a broom. This jives well with Ravenclaw’s air association (macot=raven); indeed the dates are such that Ravenclaw could have even invented flying brooms (invented in 943, right around the time of Hogwarts’ founding). If the horcrux is a broom, I think the likely hiding place is Riddle’s old wardrobe in the orphanage, in which he hid his bullying souvenirs and which Dumbledore sets on fire to prove to Riddle that he is a wizard.
F. Nagini
Created after Voldemort’s failure to gain the Sorcerer’s stone, possibly by the murder of Frank Bryce. She’ll need to be the last horcrux destroyed, given her proximity to Voldemort. She may also be the easiest to destroy in a strange sense; she won’t be guarded by the complex enchantments as the other Horcruxes are.
She is also interesting in the context of the horcrux she replaced. What I mean by this is that Dumbledore is convinced that the sixth horcrux (now Nagini) was supposed to have been made using the Harry’s murder. Dumbledore speaking:
“He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths…He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death.” (HBP, Ch. 26, pg. 506).
But what then was the intended artifact? Had Voldemort obtained an object of Gryffindors? If not, he was certainly confident that he could retain one shortly after the murder. I think the implications of this are that Dumbledore did not possess Gryffindor’s sword at the time of the Potter’s murder; if he had, Voldemort would not have been confident of being able to convert it. The Potters may have had it: they were both Gryffindors, and were living in Godric’s Hollow. But if that is the case, how did they get it? Was it a Potter family heirloom? James’ family was definitely an old enough wizarding family to have plausibly been descendants of the founder. Or did they somehow find it, or earn it, like Harry later would in the Chamber? And if Voldemort was not intending to use the sword, then is there another artifact floating out there, unknown and unused?
That’s it for the Horcruxes, as the seventh shred of Voldemort’s soul is housed within himself.
I’m going to trust Dumbledore, mostly because I don’t really see a legitimate reason to disagree with him, and also because he’s awesome. That means that there are six horcruxes, two of which have been destroyed, and one of which I believe the wheeabouts are known (see below). The remaining horcruxes must be artifacts with significant historical grandeur (e.g. Founder’s items), and must be hidden in places of personal significance to Voldemort/Riddle. We’re not going to be dealing with Harry or his scar as a Horcrux: Dumbledore didn’t believe this to be the case, and the mechanics for it are shaky, especially when there is better support in the books for Dumbledore’s suppositions.
The Diary (Created circa December 1943. Destroyed May 1993)
Destroyed by Harry in CoS. I don’t think it’s going play an important role in DH. It is interesting to note, however, that Harry doesn’t really have a lot of trouble dehorcruxifying the diary (he just stabs it with the fang), whereas Dumbledore’s hand is destroyed when he dehorcruxifies the ring.
The Ring (Probably created before December of 1944. Destroyed June/July 1996)
Destroyed by Dumbledore in HBP. It’s not going to be important in DH.
The Locket (Probably created in 1947, the year it was stolen. Possibly
destroyed by R.A.B. in 1979)
The first (possibly) undestroyed horcrux is the one we know the most about. Retrieved by “R.A.B.” from the cave at the end of HBP, who replaced it with the fake containing this note (HBP, Ch. 28, pg, 609, US Hardcover):
To the Dark Lord
I know I will be dead long before you read this
But I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret.
I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can.
I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more. ~R.AB.
I think R.A.B. is probably Regulus Black—Sirius’ brother who joined the Death Eaters, before apparently getting cold feet and breaking ranks, eventually being tracked down and killed by his former compatriots. The A possibly stands for Astracus, the name of Regulus and Sirius’ grandfather
I also think we’ve seen the Locket before, in #12 Grimmauld Place (this supports the Regulus theory), when Harry and Co. are cleaning out the house in OotP: “They found an unpleasant looking silver instrument…a musical box that emitted a faintly sinister tune…a heavy locket that none of them could open..”(OotP, Ch. 6, pg 108 British Hardcover).
Next, I think that the locket is among the things sold by Mundungus Fletcher to the barman of the Hog’s Head in Hogsmeade early in HBP:
“The street was not very busy…the exceptions were two men a little ahead of them. One was very tall and thin…Harry recognized the barman who worked in the other Hogsmeade pub, the Hog’s Head. As Harry, Ron and Hermione drew closer, the barman drew his cloak more tightly around his neck and walked away..”(HBP, Ch. 12, pg 245, US Hardcover). More tightly around his neck, as if to hide what he was wearing there? I think so.
A page on is the confirmation that the seller, Mundungus, is selling Black family heirlooms from Grimmauld place. (Harry speaking): “You took that from Sirius’ house!”(HBP, 246).
I just think that this is far too coincidental and suspicious, when you consider the fact that this barman is in fact Dumbledore’s brother Aberforth. The proof for that:
The first time we hear about Aberforth is in GoF. (Dumbledore speaking):
“My own brother, Aberforth, was prosecuted for practicing inappropriate charms on a goat.” (GoF, Ch. 24, pg 454, US Hardcover).
This is seemingly insignificant, but then we see Aberforth again in OotP, the first time in Moody’s picture of the original Order, but much more significantly at the recruitment meeting for Dumbledore’s Army, which takes place in the Hog’s Head:
“The Hog’s Head…smelled strongly of something that might have been goats.” (OotP, 299), and then “the barman sidled towards them out of the back room. He was a grumpy looking old man with a great deal of long grey hair and beard. He was tall and thin and looked vaguely familiar to Harry.” (OotP, 300). He is familiar, of course, because he looks like Dumbledore.
Finally, a piece of evidence in HBP, from the scene in which Voldemort asks Dumbledore for the Defense Against the Dark Arts Job (Voldemort speaking—Dumbledore has just revealed that he knows about the Death Eaters Voldemort has waiting for him in Hogsmeade):
“You are as omniscient as ever, Dumbledore.”
“Oh no, merely friendly with the local barman,” said Dumbledore lightly. (HBP, Ch. 20, pg 445)
This theory was subsequently confirmed by Rowling in an interview:
Q: Why is the barman of the Hog’s Head vaguely familiar to Harry? Is he Dumbledore’s brother?
A: Why do you think that it is Aberforth? [Questioner: Various clues. He smells of goats and he looks a bit like Dumbledore]. I was quite proud of that clue…. well yes, obviously {he is}.
Now, I’m not sure whether or not Aberforth recognized the locket as a horcrux, or if he just knew it to be a valuable old artifact, but either way, everything points to him making Harry’s Horcrux search easier.
A couple of final notes: If Regulus was the one who stole the locket, we have to ask who was with him (someone had to drink the potion, or help Regulus drink it). I think the best answer here is Kreacher: Regulus would not have had a problem forcing a house-elf to drink the potion. This would also perhaps explain some of Kreacher’s insanity, and also provides a neat explanation for how the locket was saved from Sirius’ purge of the house—Kreacher saved it, knowing its importance. Also, we don’t know whether or not Regulus was able to destroy the locket as a Horcrux before he was tracked down. I think that the fact that nobody can open it points towards him being unable to destroy it. If that’s the case, I think that Harry’s Parseltongue abilities will be the key to unlocking and finishing it.
D. Hufflepuff’s Cup (Again, probably created in 1947. Still hidden)
The first of the truly lost Horcruxes. Stolen by Riddle, working at the time for Borgin and Burke’s, from Hepzibah Smith, descendant of Helga Hufflepuff, and, I think, a relative of Zacharias, the irritating Hufflepuff member of the D.A who shares her surname.
I think that it is most likely buried, given Hufflepuff’s earthy associations (their mascot is a badger, their Head is the Herbology Professor, etc). Also given Dumbledore’s hiding place requisites, I think a good place to start looking would be the country fields in which Riddle first discovered he was a Parselmouth. We learn about this from Dumbledore’s memory of his first visit to young Riddle in the orphanage. (Riddle Speaking):
“I can speak to snakes. I found out when we’ve been to the country on trips—they find me, they whisper to me.” (HBP, Ch. 13, pg. 274).
This ability would come to be of great import to him both as a reminder of his connection with Salazar Slytherin, and as the key to the Chamber of Secrets.
I think that Nifflers (the treasure-finding, burrowing creatures we meet in OotP) would really be a great way for them to find a buried cup. I’m not sure how they would deal with any enchantments guarding it, however. It’s possible that they could be magically immune to such protections.
E. Mystery Horcrux: Something of Ravenclaw’s (Date of theft/creation unknown)
Again, if Dumbledore says that there is no Grffyindor relic other than the sword, and that the sword is not a horcrux, then I’m inclined to believe him. That means that the final artifact Horcrux belonged to Ravenclaw. I’m of two minds here.
My first inclination was that the item was Ravenclaw’s wand, and that we had seen it before: in Ollivander’s shop window:
“A single wand lay on a faded purple cushion in the dusty window.” (SS, Ch. 5 pg 82, US Hardcover). Purple is of course Ravenclaw’s color.
Coupled with Ollivander’s mysterious disappearance at the beginning of HBP, it’s a plausible working theory, but there are some difficulties. First, if the wand has been on display in Ollivander’s shop window, its not exactly been hidden, has it? Did Ollivander find it after it had been hidden? If so, how? Ollivander is a very old wizard of unknown magical prowess…would he really be able to find the wandcrux and beat whatever was protecting it? Maybe, but I’m not sure, and I’d be surprised if, of the six Horcruxes, two were discovered by characters not named Harry or Dumbledore. And if Ollivander didn’t find it, how did it end up in his window?
Additionally, there is a different but equally good explanation for Ollivander’s disappearance: Voldemort has ordered him to make a new wand; a wand with which he will be able to duel Harry without worrying about Priori Incantatem.
The second possibility I see then for the Ravenclaw Horcrux is a broom. This jives well with Ravenclaw’s air association (macot=raven); indeed the dates are such that Ravenclaw could have even invented flying brooms (invented in 943, right around the time of Hogwarts’ founding). If the horcrux is a broom, I think the likely hiding place is Riddle’s old wardrobe in the orphanage, in which he hid his bullying souvenirs and which Dumbledore sets on fire to prove to Riddle that he is a wizard.
F. Nagini
Created after Voldemort’s failure to gain the Sorcerer’s stone, possibly by the murder of Frank Bryce. She’ll need to be the last horcrux destroyed, given her proximity to Voldemort. She may also be the easiest to destroy in a strange sense; she won’t be guarded by the complex enchantments as the other Horcruxes are.
She is also interesting in the context of the horcrux she replaced. What I mean by this is that Dumbledore is convinced that the sixth horcrux (now Nagini) was supposed to have been made using the Harry’s murder. Dumbledore speaking:
“He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths…He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death.” (HBP, Ch. 26, pg. 506).
But what then was the intended artifact? Had Voldemort obtained an object of Gryffindors? If not, he was certainly confident that he could retain one shortly after the murder. I think the implications of this are that Dumbledore did not possess Gryffindor’s sword at the time of the Potter’s murder; if he had, Voldemort would not have been confident of being able to convert it. The Potters may have had it: they were both Gryffindors, and were living in Godric’s Hollow. But if that is the case, how did they get it? Was it a Potter family heirloom? James’ family was definitely an old enough wizarding family to have plausibly been descendants of the founder. Or did they somehow find it, or earn it, like Harry later would in the Chamber? And if Voldemort was not intending to use the sword, then is there another artifact floating out there, unknown and unused?
That’s it for the Horcruxes, as the seventh shred of Voldemort’s soul is housed within himself.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Deathly Hallows Divination
The first in a several part series that will be dealing with the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, now only 17 days away. Much credit goes to the folks at Chamber of Secrets, who were far quicker to some of the following passages, and are far cleverer than I. Without further ado, then...
Snape: Good or Evil?
The burden of proof in this question is squarely with those who would defend Snape—it certainly looks like he killed Dumbledore, and he did himself no favors by fleeing with the Death Eaters. That being said, I tend to think that despite all seeming to the contrary, he’s not actually on Voldemort’s side.
The best argument for this comes from the fact that everyone misinterprets the reason that Dumbledore trusted Snape. This comes from Harry’s confrontation with Dumbledore after he finds out from Trelawney that Snape was the one who overheard the prophecy (Dumbledore speaking):
“Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord Voldemort’s employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney’s prophecy. Naturally, he hastened to tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most deeply. But he did not know—he had no possible way of knowing—which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onward, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and your father—“
Harry interrupts. “He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven’t you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?”
Dumbledore’s response: “You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned—“
Harry interrupts again: “But he’s a very good Occlumes, isn’t he sir? And isn’t Voldemort convinced that Snape’s on his side, even now? Professor…how can you be sure Snape’s on our side?”
"Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, “I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely.”"
(HBP, Ch. 25, pg. 549)
Harry, the Order, and many readers are of course convinced that Snape’s remorse is not real, and that Dumbledore’s trust is misplaced. The next passage is from the conversation in the hospital wing after the battle in Hogwarts:
Tonks: “I always thought Dumbledore must know something about Snape that we didn’t,”
McGonagall: “He (Dumbledore) always hinted that he had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape. I mean…with Snape’s history…of course people were bound to wonder…but Dumbledore told me explicitly that Snape’s repentance was absolutely genuine…”
Tonks: “I’d love to know what Snape tole him to convince him.”
Harry: “I know. Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he hadn’t realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he’d done it, sorry that they were dead.”
Lupin: “And Dumbledore believed that? Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James.” (HBP Ch. 29 pgs 615-616)
If they had the correct version of events, that is, if Dumbledore’s trust was placed in Snape because of an alleged repentance after the Potter’s deaths, then it’s hard to see a case for good Snape. They are incorrect however; Snape must have repented long before the Potter’s deaths, as we see in Dumbledore’s Pensieve memory of Karkaroff’s trial in GoF. Karkaroff speaking:
“I assure you, Severus Snape is a Death Eater!”
"Dumbledore had gotten to his feet. “I have given evidence on this matter,” he said calmly. “Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort’s downfall, and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am.” (GoF Ch 30, pgs 590-591).
Harry and the other’s assumption must be wrong. The reason Dumbledore trusts Snape cannot be based on Snape’s remorse at the Potter’s death, because he was already spying for the Order before Lord Voldemort’s downfall, that is, before the Potter’s deaths.
Further evidence is found in OotP (during Umbridge’s inspection of Potions) that Snape has been working at Hogwarts for since the fall term of 1981. Harry’s parents were killed on Halloween of that same year. Snape was working at Hogwarts before the Potters were killed. There’s no way Dumbledore would have hired him if Snape hadn’t already been spying for him.
There must be another reason for Dumbledore’s trust. I tend to think that Snape repented as soon as he had discovered that Voldemort had interpreted Harry as the object of the prophecy. There may be some proof of this from Prisoner of Azkaban, in the conversation Harry, Ron, and Hermione overhear between McGonagall, Flitwick, Fudge, Hagrid, and Rosmerta in the Three Broomsticks. Fudge speaking:
"Dumbledore . . . had a number of useful spies. One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once. He advised them to go into hiding." (PoA Ch 10, pg. 152).
I think that this useful spy may well have been Snape, who after realizing Voldemort was going to gun for the Potters, repented, informed Dumbledore, and began spying on his former master. I also think, however, that there may be much more than this to Dumbledore’s acceptance of Snape’s remorse. I do not know what that may be.
All of this leaves unaddressed the fact that Snape kills Dumbledore. I don’t have an ironclad response to this, but there are some mitigating considerations.
First, an interesting comparison between Harry and Snape. The first half is from when Harry, acting on Dumbledore’s orders, forces Dumbledore to drink the potion hiding the locket. The other is the infamous depiction of Snape just before he kills Dumbledore.
“Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the goblet back towards Dumbledore’s mouth and tipped it, so that Dumbledore drank the remainder of the potion inside.” (HBP Ch. 26, pg 571).
“Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.” (HBP Ch. 27, pg. 595).
The two descriptions are startlingly similar, and I think that’s a clue—Snape is, like Harry, acting on Dumbledore’s orders, and like Harry, he is feeling self-loathing at the prospect of harming Dumbledore.
Second, Dumbledore’s actual death is somewhat suspicious. Every previous victim of the Avada Kedavra curse (Cedric, Frank, Moody’s spider) either falls or rolls over, instantly dead. Yet Dumbledore “was blasted into the air. For a split second, he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backward…” (HBP Ch. 27, pg. 596).
Why does he die so differently than the others? I’m distrustful of this series of circumstances, especially given that we spend a lot of time in book 6 learning about silent spells; indeed one such spell, Levicorpus, (moreover invented by Snape), blasts people into the air, and then hangs them there. Those effects too closely match Dumbledore’s death to be coincidental, I think, though I don’t really understand the implications.
Anyways, the last pieces of evidence from HBP: I thought Snape’s reaction to Harry during their duel was interesting on a couple of fronts. First, he never attacks Harry, but instead spends a lot of time deflecting Harry’s spells and lecturing him on how he needs to close his mind and master his emotions. It’s rather like he’s giving him backdoor advice. Secondly, his reaction when Harry calls him a coward:
"“DON’T—" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog (Fang) stuck in the burning house behind them—“CALL ME A COWARD!”"
I think that this reaction is best explained if the pain Snape feels is at killing Dumbledore, and at not being able to tell the Order that he was acting on Dumbledore’s orders, that in killing Dumbledore, he was acting out of anything but cowardice.
Next, a consideration from Book 1. Snape plays an active role in preventing Quirrell from obtaining the Sorcerer’s Stone. Indeed, he confronts Quirrell in the Forbidden Forest:
“You don’t want me as your enemy, Quirrell…we’ll have another little chat soon, when you’ve had time to think things over, and decided where your loyalties lie.” (SS, Ch. 13, pg. 226).
This strikes me as significant: Snape has no way of knowing Voldemort is under Quirrell’s turban, but does he suspect that Quirrell is working for Voldemort? I think this likely, otherwise why the “loyalties” comment? And if he does suspect, the indications are fairly clear that Snape’s own loyalties lie away from Quirrell’s, that is, with Dumbledore’s.
Further, after Harry (being detained by Umbridge) tells Snape that he thinks Voldemort has Sirius, Snape, despite his loathing for Sirius, checks and makes sure he is safely ensconced in Grimmauld Place. Then, after Harry does not return from the forest, it is Snape who raises the alarm and sends the Order to the Ministry. Why do this, if he's on Voldemort's side? Even if he felt he had to check on Sirius in order to maintain his cover, there would be no need to roust the Order; Snape could simply have said that, after he made sure Sirius was okay, he stopped monitoring the situation. This is an entirely believable story, and this course of action would have made things alot easier for Voldemort, but Snape deliberately takes the course of action that will impede his alleged master. Something isn't tallying here, and I think that's another indication that Snape is not what he appears.
Finally, why, WHY, then did Snape make the Unbreakable vow? I don’t know, but I think its reasonable to assume that he was, at the least, acting on Dumbledore’s orders. There's some thought that Dumbledore in fact impersonated Snape in Spinner's End, but I'm not entirely sold on that, and won't waste your time with that theory until I'm much more confidant in it.
Snape: Good or Evil?
The burden of proof in this question is squarely with those who would defend Snape—it certainly looks like he killed Dumbledore, and he did himself no favors by fleeing with the Death Eaters. That being said, I tend to think that despite all seeming to the contrary, he’s not actually on Voldemort’s side.
The best argument for this comes from the fact that everyone misinterprets the reason that Dumbledore trusted Snape. This comes from Harry’s confrontation with Dumbledore after he finds out from Trelawney that Snape was the one who overheard the prophecy (Dumbledore speaking):
“Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord Voldemort’s employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney’s prophecy. Naturally, he hastened to tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most deeply. But he did not know—he had no possible way of knowing—which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onward, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and your father—“
Harry interrupts. “He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven’t you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?”
Dumbledore’s response: “You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned—“
Harry interrupts again: “But he’s a very good Occlumes, isn’t he sir? And isn’t Voldemort convinced that Snape’s on his side, even now? Professor…how can you be sure Snape’s on our side?”
"Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, “I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely.”"
(HBP, Ch. 25, pg. 549)
Harry, the Order, and many readers are of course convinced that Snape’s remorse is not real, and that Dumbledore’s trust is misplaced. The next passage is from the conversation in the hospital wing after the battle in Hogwarts:
Tonks: “I always thought Dumbledore must know something about Snape that we didn’t,”
McGonagall: “He (Dumbledore) always hinted that he had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape. I mean…with Snape’s history…of course people were bound to wonder…but Dumbledore told me explicitly that Snape’s repentance was absolutely genuine…”
Tonks: “I’d love to know what Snape tole him to convince him.”
Harry: “I know. Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he hadn’t realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he’d done it, sorry that they were dead.”
Lupin: “And Dumbledore believed that? Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James.” (HBP Ch. 29 pgs 615-616)
If they had the correct version of events, that is, if Dumbledore’s trust was placed in Snape because of an alleged repentance after the Potter’s deaths, then it’s hard to see a case for good Snape. They are incorrect however; Snape must have repented long before the Potter’s deaths, as we see in Dumbledore’s Pensieve memory of Karkaroff’s trial in GoF. Karkaroff speaking:
“I assure you, Severus Snape is a Death Eater!”
"Dumbledore had gotten to his feet. “I have given evidence on this matter,” he said calmly. “Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort’s downfall, and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am.” (GoF Ch 30, pgs 590-591).
Harry and the other’s assumption must be wrong. The reason Dumbledore trusts Snape cannot be based on Snape’s remorse at the Potter’s death, because he was already spying for the Order before Lord Voldemort’s downfall, that is, before the Potter’s deaths.
Further evidence is found in OotP (during Umbridge’s inspection of Potions) that Snape has been working at Hogwarts for since the fall term of 1981. Harry’s parents were killed on Halloween of that same year. Snape was working at Hogwarts before the Potters were killed. There’s no way Dumbledore would have hired him if Snape hadn’t already been spying for him.
There must be another reason for Dumbledore’s trust. I tend to think that Snape repented as soon as he had discovered that Voldemort had interpreted Harry as the object of the prophecy. There may be some proof of this from Prisoner of Azkaban, in the conversation Harry, Ron, and Hermione overhear between McGonagall, Flitwick, Fudge, Hagrid, and Rosmerta in the Three Broomsticks. Fudge speaking:
"Dumbledore . . . had a number of useful spies. One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once. He advised them to go into hiding." (PoA Ch 10, pg. 152).
I think that this useful spy may well have been Snape, who after realizing Voldemort was going to gun for the Potters, repented, informed Dumbledore, and began spying on his former master. I also think, however, that there may be much more than this to Dumbledore’s acceptance of Snape’s remorse. I do not know what that may be.
All of this leaves unaddressed the fact that Snape kills Dumbledore. I don’t have an ironclad response to this, but there are some mitigating considerations.
First, an interesting comparison between Harry and Snape. The first half is from when Harry, acting on Dumbledore’s orders, forces Dumbledore to drink the potion hiding the locket. The other is the infamous depiction of Snape just before he kills Dumbledore.
“Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the goblet back towards Dumbledore’s mouth and tipped it, so that Dumbledore drank the remainder of the potion inside.” (HBP Ch. 26, pg 571).
“Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.” (HBP Ch. 27, pg. 595).
The two descriptions are startlingly similar, and I think that’s a clue—Snape is, like Harry, acting on Dumbledore’s orders, and like Harry, he is feeling self-loathing at the prospect of harming Dumbledore.
Second, Dumbledore’s actual death is somewhat suspicious. Every previous victim of the Avada Kedavra curse (Cedric, Frank, Moody’s spider) either falls or rolls over, instantly dead. Yet Dumbledore “was blasted into the air. For a split second, he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backward…” (HBP Ch. 27, pg. 596).
Why does he die so differently than the others? I’m distrustful of this series of circumstances, especially given that we spend a lot of time in book 6 learning about silent spells; indeed one such spell, Levicorpus, (moreover invented by Snape), blasts people into the air, and then hangs them there. Those effects too closely match Dumbledore’s death to be coincidental, I think, though I don’t really understand the implications.
Anyways, the last pieces of evidence from HBP: I thought Snape’s reaction to Harry during their duel was interesting on a couple of fronts. First, he never attacks Harry, but instead spends a lot of time deflecting Harry’s spells and lecturing him on how he needs to close his mind and master his emotions. It’s rather like he’s giving him backdoor advice. Secondly, his reaction when Harry calls him a coward:
"“DON’T—" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog (Fang) stuck in the burning house behind them—“CALL ME A COWARD!”"
I think that this reaction is best explained if the pain Snape feels is at killing Dumbledore, and at not being able to tell the Order that he was acting on Dumbledore’s orders, that in killing Dumbledore, he was acting out of anything but cowardice.
Next, a consideration from Book 1. Snape plays an active role in preventing Quirrell from obtaining the Sorcerer’s Stone. Indeed, he confronts Quirrell in the Forbidden Forest:
“You don’t want me as your enemy, Quirrell…we’ll have another little chat soon, when you’ve had time to think things over, and decided where your loyalties lie.” (SS, Ch. 13, pg. 226).
This strikes me as significant: Snape has no way of knowing Voldemort is under Quirrell’s turban, but does he suspect that Quirrell is working for Voldemort? I think this likely, otherwise why the “loyalties” comment? And if he does suspect, the indications are fairly clear that Snape’s own loyalties lie away from Quirrell’s, that is, with Dumbledore’s.
Further, after Harry (being detained by Umbridge) tells Snape that he thinks Voldemort has Sirius, Snape, despite his loathing for Sirius, checks and makes sure he is safely ensconced in Grimmauld Place. Then, after Harry does not return from the forest, it is Snape who raises the alarm and sends the Order to the Ministry. Why do this, if he's on Voldemort's side? Even if he felt he had to check on Sirius in order to maintain his cover, there would be no need to roust the Order; Snape could simply have said that, after he made sure Sirius was okay, he stopped monitoring the situation. This is an entirely believable story, and this course of action would have made things alot easier for Voldemort, but Snape deliberately takes the course of action that will impede his alleged master. Something isn't tallying here, and I think that's another indication that Snape is not what he appears.
Finally, why, WHY, then did Snape make the Unbreakable vow? I don’t know, but I think its reasonable to assume that he was, at the least, acting on Dumbledore’s orders. There's some thought that Dumbledore in fact impersonated Snape in Spinner's End, but I'm not entirely sold on that, and won't waste your time with that theory until I'm much more confidant in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)