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

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

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