"If we turn our heads and look away and hope that it will all disappear then they will - all of them, an entire generation of people. And we will have only history left to judge us."
If you are a registered member at Veritaserum, you will have access to many more features on the forums than just being a normal, visiting Guest.
Some features include:
Access to all the forums.
Ability to reply to existing threads and post your own.
Privileges to access other sections of the community like: Personal Message (PM) System, Gallery, Deathly Hallows discussions and more!
The personal, great feeling of being a supportive member of Veritaserum!
It takes just a few minutes to register, and it's FREE!
Group: Admin
Posts: 8060
Joined: 24-May 04
From: The Back of Beyond
Member No.: 216
The other thread had grown to a whopping 70 pages, so I think we're well overdue for a new one now
The old thread can be found here - it's advisable to read through the last few posts of that thread before posting here to avoid repeating something that's been said recently and possibly being ignored
The current topic concerned Dumbledore's ability to do wandless magic. savingharry posted last, and his comments are copied here for those who would like to respond -
QUOTE
Well, there's two things there. One, Dumbledore had the ability to do wandless magic (I know there are points in the novels where we see this but I can't remember them. Also, it's on hp-lexicon, who's pretty reliable on these things). Dumbledore claimed that he would have been able to break out of azkaban if locked up. I'm sure they don't leave the wands with the prisoners, so that shows that Dumbledore was sufficiently powerful without a wand to protect himself if he needed to. Do you really think that he couldn't have stopped Draco if he'd wanted to? Even when the death eaters showed up, Dumbledore wasn't really threatened, I don't think.
Second, Dumbledore always said that death was just the next great adventure. I think that dumbledore, after having lived for 150 years, would be willing to die if it was needed. 150 is a lot less than his friend Nicholas Flamel, but what he said about death being going to bed after an extremely long day would still ring true.
Woohoo first post in new thread Anyway since I was the last one (before VoldermortIsLord) to be commented on because I believed that DD was begging for his life I would like to discuss this "Death is just the next great adventure" theory of DD.
I firmly believe that in any other situation Albus Dumbledore would never beg for his life indeed and that he was not afraid of dying. We can probably agree on that part. But I'm not sure if this particular situation DD had the same feeling... Maybe he didn't want to die just yet because he found his task here on earth wasn't finished yet? Maybe he needed to help Harry more on finding those Horcruxes ? Just my opinion of course but I just feel that the whole theory of DD not being afraid to die is accepted a bit to easy here...
MOD EDIT : Er, Sond, did you bother to read anything I said up there? Instead of squeeing about being the first poster, which I think everyone pretty much agrees is a rather irritating habit, could you please address the current topic of conversation before moving on to another one? Thanks. ~ Louise VTM Forums Admin
------------------------------
House: Gryffindor Girlfriend: Ginny Weasley Best Friend: Lee Jordan Animagus Bottlenose Dolphin Patronus Snidget You place too much importance... on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be! ~ Albus Dumbledore
Group: Dueling Club
Posts: 925
Joined: 16-June 06
From: this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork."
Member No.: 18455
Yeah, but what about what I said (in the post above yours, quoted in the first post)? Don't you think Dumbledore could have done something to protect himself? I mean, really. He's one of the most powerful wizards of all time. I think that he could have done something if he wanted.
-fish
*edit* woah. my server is doing weird things. my post copied about nine times. I deleted them. Sorry for anyone who saw that and was confued.
Although I agree that Dumbledore can do wandles magic to a competent level, and possibly be more powerful without a wand than many other witches/wizards are with one, I find it difficult to believe he could take on the DE's on the tower in his present condition. Maybe he could have taken on Malfoy, but not Malfoy and the other 3 DE's. Also, assuming Snape is evil, do you think a wandles Dumbledore could defeat Snape when he has a wand?
It seems to me that the big thing to consider is not what Dumbledore could have done without a wand, but what he actually did do, or tried to do, which was nothing. He didn't even try to fight Malfoy or the DE's, but I think there are a few reasons behind this.
1) He never wanted to hurt/attack Malfoy (though I think he could have if he wanted, even without a wand), so he tried to talk him round to the good side, but...
2) Once the other DE's came up I think he knew the game was up, and though he could have taken a few of them with him if he choose to (which to me seems a Dumbledore thing, in a way), but he decided that something good might come from his death, which is why I think he stalled, waiting for Snape (possibly)
If we agree Dumbledore could do wandless magic to a good level, and that he didin't want Malfoy to kill him or be hurt, then there seems to be a simple way out of it. He could either stun Malfoy in someway and attack the other DE's, dying in the fight. Or he could just attack one of the DE's stright on and again be killed in the attack, either way Malfoy is unhurt and didn't have to kill Dumbledore.
As soon as the DE's came up Malfoy didn't want anything to do with what was going on. But, once the DE's came up ot the tower Dumbledore still waited and stalled, but what for??
------------------------------
Fred: Harry! Simple splendid to see you old boy - George: Marvellous. Absolutely spiffing Mrs Weasley: Thats enough, now Fred: Mum! How really corkin to see you - (The Leaky Cauldron: PoA) McGonagall: You look in excellent health to me, Potter, so you will excuse me if I don't let you off homework today. I assure you that if you die, you need not hand it in
Group: Dueling Club
Posts: 925
Joined: 16-June 06
From: this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork."
Member No.: 18455
I know. That's the big question. Because think back to the scene when the ministry officials tried to capture Dumbledore. Don't you think that the Auror (the one other than Shacklebolt), Umbridge, and Fudge were pretty capable wizards? But dumbledore instantly incapacitates them all. I don't remember if this was wandless magic or not, but it happened pretty quick. Also, don't you think Dumbledore could have summoned his wand? I would think that particular spell would be the first one you'd work on if you were trying to perfect wandless magic. The point is that Dumbledore didn't fight back. I think that Dumbledore's death was planned. I agree that the big question is: why didn't dumbledore do anything? He could have done something. But he didn't. That, in my opinion, is the crutial point.
Group: Admin
Posts: 8060
Joined: 24-May 04
From: The Back of Beyond
Member No.: 216
Whilst I am with you on almost everything you said, Fish, just to play Devil's Advocate for the moment...the naysayers will say that Dumbledore was likely incapacitated by whatever it was he drank from that fountain. Perhaps, though he would have fought back under any other circumstances, the fact was simply that he couldn't.
I don't want to believe that, of course, because I'm in the Dumbledore-planned-it-Snape-is-innocent camp, but all the same...
Group: Wizengamot - Retired
Posts: 4182
Joined: 17-February 06
From: Pretoria, Suid-Afrika
Member No.: 15693
That is true. I agree that, even if Dumbledore was powerful enough to do wandless magic under normal circumstances (which I definitely think he was), he could just have been too weak to take on everyone on the tower that night.
While I'm definitely on the same side as Louise and Fish, I'm not convinced that this argument could really further our case that much. However, the potion Dumbledore drank is very interesting, don't you think?
I mean, think a moment on how many ideas Jo has dreamed up so far. I'm sure she wasn't really desperate for thinking up ways to protect the horcrux, right? Don't you think that her choice is significant? Why a defense mechanism that incapacitates Dumbledore, but not Harry? Why one that makes Harry react in a very similar way to how Snape did when they had to hurt Dumbledore?
Why couldn't it just have been something that Harry and Dumbledore could have fought and overcome and proceeded. It's different from the normal 'dragon-guarded treasure' image. This potion was something else.
Why did she choose a potion that made Dumbledore defenseless? Couldn't it have been so that he wasn't able to defend himself? Think about it - if he was still in a condition to defend himself, after having been built up to this super wizard who could do almost anything, where would that leave the Snape mystery?
Dumbledore had to die - it was crucial to Jo's plot. If he was able to defend himself, and he didn't, wouldn't the idea of a planned murder be hugely obvious? If Dumbledore stood before Snape, wholly capable of fighting, and he let Snape kill him without doing anything, it would have made everyone believe that it had been planned - even the Death Eaters?
In the same way, a fight would have given Snape away just as easily.
Where would we have been then? I'm still convinced that we are not capable of deducing the right answer by looking at the hard evidence - simply because we know that the crucial part is missing, and even worse - purposefully missing. The ambiguity of the situation is almost enough of an indication. There is a mystery, and it has purposefully not been explained fully. Why would the missing pieces confirm what seems to be obvious, if this mystery is so purposefully being upheld? Remember, this is an author who wants a final twist. We may have become much smarter at recognising her clues, but we shouldn't forget that she is still planting them purposefully, and her style is still giving that final twist. She would not give away her story before the absolute last minute.
I remember in HBP when Harry was talking to Dumbledore about something. He was talking about how he was smarter than most wizards. Yet his mistakes are also quite bigger. So I think that Snape betrayed him and Dumbledore's loyalty caught him. It just doesn't make sense that Dumbledore could have screwed up his judgement that much. And trust Snape to a fault.
Group: Sorting Ceremony
Posts: 35
Joined: 9-December 06
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Member No.: 33434
I didn't even think about that!
What if Dumbledore's mistake was trusting Snape too much? I mean, face it, Dumbledore is a kind, sweet, old man, who trusts easily, and seems to never lose faith, regardless of the circumstances.
Maybe Dumbledore felt that Snape was just making it seem like he was going to hurt him, and maybe it was a fake plea to spare him. And then he was caught off guard by Snape using the AK Curse, and killing him.
And another thing, I don't remember if it was acknowledged in the book, but I don't think that Dumbledore mentioned to Snape that Harry and him were going to get one of the horcruxes. So to me, that seems to void the whole, "Dumbledore's death was planned" idea. I think that Snape came out of the school, saw Dumbledore in his weakened condition, and seized the opportunity.
QUOTE(Sond @ Dec 15 2006, 03:03 AM) [snapback]281607[/snapback]
MOD EDIT : Er, Sond, did you bother to read anything I said up there? Instead of squeeing about being the first poster, which I think everyone pretty much agrees is a rather irritating habit, could you please address the current topic of conversation before moving on to another one? Thanks. ~ Louise VTM Forums Admin
Sure I did and since you quoted both the part of the wandless magic AND the part of DD not being afraid of death I thought I had a choice of subjects here. Well I had a (imo) nice argument on the second so I chose that one. Anyway with this being said and my apoligies being made for squeeing, back to the topic of the wand less magic:
I also believe that DD would be able to do wandless magic but in his state at that time I really do not believe that he was strong enough to take on 3 death eaters, in his poisened condition and wandless so he probably let it go. This could have been for 2 reasons, each of them linked with the guilt or the innocence of Snape:
1) Snape is guilty: DD just remained there hoping for Snape to arrive and help him 2) Snape is innocent: It's al part of the big masterplan to convience everyone that Snape is still a DE.
I'm still not convinced with this masterplan though, main reason for this actually is why Harry wasn't told about this ? It would have saved both him and Snape a lot of trouble if they were both in it don't you think?
------------------------------
House: Gryffindor Girlfriend: Ginny Weasley Best Friend: Lee Jordan Animagus Bottlenose Dolphin Patronus Snidget You place too much importance... on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be! ~ Albus Dumbledore
Sorry if this too long. I am talking about both the wandless magic and mostly about the Snape is innocent or guilty thing.
Well, the question is who is Snape betraying. So I have two theories. One of them describes that Snape is betraying Voldemort, and the other one is that Snape is betraying Dumbledore. I seriously think that Snape is betraying Voldemort, but, yet again, we won't really know until the seventh book comes out. Almost all of the people above have said something about Dumbledore and wand less magic. I agree he can do wand less magic because he is such a great wizard and all. What i seem to see is the main topic, is that Dumbledore didn’t do anything to stop Snape or any of the other death eaters when he was killed. Some say it was because of the potion from the fountain and others say that he planned that. Well I say that Dumbledore is not really dead. I mean he is so strong and maybe the potion harmed him a little bit, but later it started to wear off. So anyways, Snape would know better then to just kill Dumbledore, right? He knows him very well and he is even scared of him, so yeah I agree it was planned and Snape is good. He wants Voldemort to think that he is dead so that he can think of another plan and he must have already thought of that plan. And then he can't tell Harry either because Harry doesn't really know occulemency. So Voldemort can get into his mind once again.
Snape is good and is betraying Voldemort because what Voldemort tried to do like six times already, was to kill Harry. If Snape is so close to him, he can kill him easily. Or at least torture him enough that Voldemort is satisfied. He just picks on him really and takes off points because that is helpful to him, because his house, Slytherin, might then win at the end. Anyways, so that's one thing. Another thing is that how much information was Snape seriously giving to Voldemort from the Order of Phoenix? Nothing much, right? Or then wouldn't Voldemort already have everything he wanted. And then Dumbledore trusts Snape like way too much. Dumbledore didn't want Harry to know too much information about the Order of Phoenix, but Snape knew everything. Dumbledore couldn’t trust Harry because Voldemort might get into his mind like he did, but he could have trusted Hermione or Ron. He probably thought that they would eventually tell Harry, but he could have still done something like a spell or something on them. In the first book Snape hated Professor Quirell and Voldemort was with him all the time. Snape tried to save Harry during the quidditch game, when Voldemort was trying to kill him. So there are like alot if things that can prove the Snape is most-likely innocent.
If you remember in the Half-Blood Prince, in the beginning when Bellatrix Lestrange and Narcissa Malfoy go to meet Snape, he has Peter Pettigrew at his house. That might mean that he is serving for Voldemort or it could just mean that he doesn’t like Sirius so if he keeps Peter then Sirius can’t go free and Voldemort will be pleased by him. Then Narcissa is only going to ask Snape for help and why would she do that if he were on Dumbledore’s side? So you can think he is divulging Dumbledore that way, but wait is Lestrange just jealous that Voldemort likes Snape better then her or does she seriously think that Snape is spying on them? So when she asks him all these questions, he gives her answers that could mean his is helping Voldemort, but maybe him and Dumbledore sat together and made those up. So anyway I think Snape is good. Oh and then the promise that Snape made with Narcissa to save Draco, he had to do that or she would start to think that he was on Dumbledore’s side and then he probably told Dumbledore about that and they made that plan to pretend to kill Dumbledore at the end of the sixth book. So I don’t know what you think, but this is just my opinion.
Group: Sorting Ceremony
Posts: 35
Joined: 9-December 06
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Member No.: 33434
QUOTE
Snape is good and is betraying Voldemort because what Voldemort tried to do like six times already, was to kill Harry. If Snape is so close to him, he can kill him easily. Or at least torture him enough that Voldemort is satisfied. He just picks on him really and takes off points because that is helpful to him, because his house, Slytherin, might then win at the end.
If Snape was loyal to Voldemort, which he is, he wouldn't just kill Harry. Besides, he's got too much to lose by just taking his wand out in the middle of a potions class and just hitting him with an Avada Kedavra. Why would Voldemort be pleased if Snape did something that he couldn't? Don't you think this would upset the Dark Lord, seeing as that his sole purpose has been to kill Harry Potter ever since he was able to inhabit a body? Snape himself would probably have been killed just as well if he killed Harry. And the degrading thing that he does in class is just to get back at his father for all the years of abuse that he caused. And maybe he felt that he needed to do that to make Harry feel unsure about himself. Maybe Dumbledore saw what Snape was doing, and maybe that's why Snape wasn't allowed to teach in Defense Against the Dark Arts for so long. Because he'd probably have the tendency of scaring people into forgetting things, or to make people hate the class so much that they just tune him out.
Just a theory on that last part, but it might make sense...
If Snape was loyal to Voldemort, which he is, he wouldn't just kill Harry. Besides, he's got too much to lose by just taking his wand out in the middle of a potions class and just hitting him with an Avada Kedavra. Why would Voldemort be pleased if Snape did something that he couldn't? Don't you think this would upset the Dark Lord, seeing as that his sole purpose has been to kill Harry Potter ever since he was able to inhabit a body? Snape himself would probably have been killed just as well if he killed Harry.
I agree that Snape would not just take out his wand in the middle of a potions class and kill Harry. Of course he wouldn't. Snape is actually smart and thinks before he acts (most of the time). So yeah, your right about that, but Snape could kill Harry another time. It doesn't have to be then. Harry is always breaking the rules and Snape could do something, you know. Anyways, about the Voldemort would be mad if Snape killed Harry because he wants to kill him himself thing, well yeah i guess your right about that VoldemortIsLord. But once again Snape could give Harry a really hard time. I like your theory though and you could probabbbly have it right. I just don't want to belive that Snape is loyal to Voldemort.
Group: Sorting Ceremony
Posts: 35
Joined: 9-December 06
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Member No.: 33434
Nobody does. They're all still entertaining the notion that Snape is still good. I just can't seem to believe that a man who kills the only thing standing between Harry and the Dark Lord, was doing it with the best intentions. I mean, would you not think that a man who killed someone in real life, for ANY reason, would be considered evil?
I know it's a different, and there are different circumstances. But still, I don't think that the Wizarding world would be that much different from the Muggle world in that respect.
I just don't see how people can believe it. He's a MURDERER for crying out loud! It's like saying someone is killing someone for God, if you believe in such a thing. Is that still not evil?
Whose side is Snape on?, Vs. 8
Dec 14 2006, 10:15 PM
