I've got a theory . . .

[pegkerr]

Or rather, I'm enamored with some other people's theories. psychic_serpent has been wondering about Florean Fortescue. Why did he get dragged off by the Deatheaters? psychic_serpent points out that there is a portrait in Dumbledore's office called "Fortescue," who is repeatedly mentioned as using an ear trumpet. Might this be an ancestor of the present Mr. Fortescue? And if the present Mr. Fortescue has a portrait of that same ancestor, perhaps this is a connection between Dumbledore' s office and Diagon Alley? And if the Deatheaters now have control of that portrait, perhaps they are spying on Dumbledore's office?

But the theory I'm most enchanted with at the moment is the Stoppered Death theory, which John Granger (Hogwarts Professor) explains at length in his new book Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader (which I am in the middle of reading and HUGELY enjoying.) Who killed Dumbledore? Hint: It wasn't Professor Snape. Professor Granger espouses a theory (he also credits Cathy Liesner of the Leaky Cauldron) that it all goes back to that first potion lesson in Philosopher's Stone: Snape tells the first years that he can teach them out to "bottle fame, brew glory, and even put a stopper in death." Rowling actually carefully points back to this crucial lesson on several occasions: it is where we first learn about bezoars, which saved Ron in Half-Blood Prince. Hermione even points back to this lecture, too. When she and Harry are having another argument about the Half-Blood Prince textbook, they have this exchange:

"Don't start, Hermione," said Harry. "If it hadn't been for the Prince, Ron wouldn't be sitting here right now."
"He would be if you'd just listened to Snape in our first year," said Hermione dismissively.

This explains much of what happened in Half Blood Prince. Professor Snape "stoppered" Albus Dumbledore's death when the Headmaster tried to destroy the Slytherin Ring Horcrux.

In other words, Severus Snape did NOT kill Albus Dumbledore on the top of the Tower. On the contrary, Albus Dumbledore was already dead before the school year began. When Snape asks his Defense Against the Dark Arts class what is the difference between a ghost and an inferi, the answer may be "Professor Dumbledore." Albus is quite literally a "dead man walking." Note that "stoppering death" is not an indefinite process, nor does it change the reality of Dumbledore's demise. But it explains a lot of the action of Half Blood Prince. Why does Albus trust Snape? Because Snape stoppered his death. Which is also why Dumbledore can't tell ANYONE why he trusts him: if it got back to Voldemort, Snape would be a dead man. It also answers why Snape is willing to take the Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa, even if he knew Draco's mission was to kill Dumbledore. He knew that Dumbledore was already dead. For the same reason he can morally and ethically blast Dumbledore with the Avadra Kedavra curse on the top of the tower: As Albus himself tells Draco (!) "He cannot kill you if you are already dead."

Stoppered death also explains why Albus finally gives Snape the Defense Against the Dark Arts job, knowing that since the position is cursed, Snape must leave by the end of the year, and why he does a 180 degree turn from his hands-off approach to Harry and now starts teaching him everything he can about Voldemort. He knows that his time is running out. It also explains why he tells Harry he needs Professor Snape when they arrive back at the castle, after the visit to the cave. Dumbledore knows that it is time (possibly because of the potion he ingested in the cave) for Snape to "pull the stopper back out," so to speak, so that he [Snape] can cut ties with the Order and go back to Voldemort, now seen by all sides as Dumbledore's murderer (whereas in reality he is now running deep undercover, Dumbledore's man through and through).

I love, love, LOVE this theory. Snape is no longer guilty of murder, and his actions and Dumbledore's actions through Half-Blood Prince now make both rational and ethical sense.

As I said, I'm enjoying John Granger's book so much that I would certainly recommend that the HP fans on my list go out and get a copy and read it. I remain unconvinced by his characterization of Horace Slughorn as a prime mover behind the scenes, but other than that, I am amazed and delighted by the way he has fit so much together. The alchemy sections have intrigued me, and I have been fascinated by his discussions of how Rowling is both a postmodernist writer and simultaneously subverts postmodernism (I'm just getting to that part now, but am eager to read more). He writes in a very clear, lively and accessible style.

As I've been reading it, I've been reflecting sadly on the fact that we have so little time left to spin out our theories! I would actually love to hear what people have to say about Professor Granger's book, but the window of time of we-don't-know-what's-going-to-happen is about to close, and all criticism and theorizing about the books is about to change enormously. As a long-time fan of the Lord of the Rings I am perfectly well aware that when the canon is closed, that certainly won't mean that we will run out of things to say. But it will certainly be different. An era--a particularly fun and exciting era--is coming to an end.

Comments

[tassie-gal.livejournal.com]

Now THAT is an interesting theory. I must admit the only book besides JK Rowlings that I have even attempted to read in the HP universe is "If Aristole ran Hogwarts, Philosophy in Harry Potter" and only then as I wanted cute quotes for the beginnings of my thesis chapters.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

What a very interesting theory! I would like to read this book I think.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Fascinating.

B

[thistlerose.livejournal.com]

That's a really cool theory. And one I've never heard before.

[starsthatguide.livejournal.com]

That is just awesome. **re-reads faster so she can get to the theorizing**

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Fascinating! And it seems, for lack of a better word, Rowlingian. It seems very like her to drop a suggestion, very early on, of a concept she intends to use much later.

[penmage.livejournal.com]

I love that theory. I firmly believe in Snape's innocence, and this brings it all together, ties up all the unexplainable bits.

[aome.livejournal.com]

That's a fascinating theory, although it doesn't change at all how I see HBP's events. My vision of "stoppering death" was that he would teach them to brew poisons - death in a bottle. Stoppered death.

Also, didn't Snape actually say "Avada Kedavra" in HBP? Why would he need to do that if Albus was already dead?

It doesn't change my view of the theory as fascinating, though - like Knight2King, I think just the extravagently detailed theories people come up with are pretty cool, the ones that make you feel anything is possible, even if they're nowhere near the truth.

And - to be honest, I doubt we will have all our 'plot holes' answered in DH. I think theorizing will go on forever. :)

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Also, didn't Snape actually say "Avada Kedavra" in HBP? Why would he need to do that if Albus was already dead?

Perhaps that was necessary to pull the stopper out.

[kokopoko.livejournal.com]

I've read that theory in a few fanfics. I think it's the most credible one.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

There's a HP movie marathon upcoming at the Riverview.

K.

[cupcake-goth.livejournal.com]

Oh, what a fabulous theory! And thank you for mentioning this book; I had been idly thinking about picking it up, but hadn't made up my mind yet.

[morganmalfoy.livejournal.com]

as a snape afficianado, I have been spitting this theory out to all and sundry and am so convinced it's true, I am shocked for a minute by people who still think Snape is evil. Snape being evil would upset me more than Harry dying.

[malinaldarose.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I've wishlisted the book, but don't think I'll have a chance to get it before DH-Day.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

Ooh, neat!

[avengangle.livejournal.com]

Hmm. That's a good one. Up 'til this point I was pretty certain that, at the very least, Dumbledore knew he was dying because of the potion/poison stuff, and therefore when Snape killed him (on Dumbledore's command) it wasn't that much of a sacrifice, but if you throw that whole 'stoppered death' thing in the works, it makes it all that much more interesting. Thanks!

Can't wait until the 21st!

[dragongoddess.livejournal.com]

That is a really interesting theory... came over here from kiwiria's link... she's right, this is the most interesting theory.

[aurillia.livejournal.com]

That's really interesting, thanks for your post.

I would have to re-read them all before I spotted even half of those references; the only one I've read more than once is Order of the Phoenix (no particular reason), though I'm thinking of re-reading them all before reading the last one, cause things like this stump me. I found that scene on the roof of the tower wherer Dumbledore dies really confusing, and I admit I'm still not sure I get the "stoppered" thing - if Dumbledore was already dead and Snape "unstoppered" him, does that mean he's, well, dead for real now? In that case, nothing's really changed - oh, except for Snape's allegiances. Oh crap, I'll just have to read them all again and then maybe it'll make sense!

I do think she's an amazing writer, to combine humour, readability for all ages, great characters, inventiveness and a hell of a clever plot!

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

if Dumbledore was already dead and Snape "unstoppered" him, does that mean he's, well, dead for real now?

Yes, he's dead for real, now.

In that case, nothing's really changed - oh, except for Snape's allegiances. And Snape's guilt. He is now no longer of murder. It wasn't Snape that killed Dumbledore. The Slytherin Ring horcrux killed him. All Snape did was to delay the inevitable.

This, for me is huge. I have long been convinced of Snape's loyalties as being on Dumbledore's side (see my argument here, here and here), but the murder bothered me enormously. This theory, which absolves Snape of the murder, I certainly hope will prove to be true in the next book.

[atarisrock-hard.livejournal.com]

It's a very interesting theory and I can really see where the guy is coming from...

But I really can't help but disagree with Snape's keepng Dumbledore alive being the reason that he couldn't tell anyone why he trusted Snape.

He's trusted Snape for a long time, obviously, and has asserted that position since at least the fourth book when the fact that Snape was/is a Death Eater was finally revealed, no matter how obvious it was to everyone. If Snape really did "stopper" Dumbledore's death, then it only should have reinforced the trust instead of being the reason completely. There has to be something else behind it all.

Other than that, the theory made a lot of sense. I've always thought that Snape was really good and that he killed Dumbledore because he was ordered to by Dumbledore himself, and not by Voldemort of because of the Unkreakable Vow. If I were in Dumbledore's position of all-knowing and whatnot, I would rather sacrifice myself than lose the spy in the enemy's ranks.

That's just my opinion, haha! Thanks for sharing that theory!