Book 7 Theory
It explains so much. I was thinking about the good-Snape/bad-Snape debate and all the little plot incidents that could go one way or the other and suddenly it just fell into place.
Dumbledore is bad.
Yes, I've always liked Dumbledore, but it is a RUSE. Think about it. When kids are in danger, where is Dumbledore? Conveniently "called away." When kids are dying, where is Dumbledore? Just staying out of it, sitting tight. When Voldemort enters Hogwarts twice in two years, who fights him off? Harry. Could Harry be reasonably expected to succeed? No. So gee, wasn't it convenient that "the one wizard Voldemort feared" takes himself off at those precise moments? Snape helps Harry, Fawkes helps Harry, other students and teachers help Harry, but Dumbledore never seems to come to the rescue.
When have we seen Dumbledore defend a student? When have we seen Dumbledore defend the school? The only time we saw Dumbledore get his Jedi on, who was he defending? HIMSELF, from Ministry goons come to take him away. Though he does no active evil, he consistently fails to aid the cause of good. Why does anybody keep Snape around? Because Dumbledore tells them to. He is in a position of power, trusted by everyone, and his chief duties seem to be to baffle and to do nothing. The man can see through invisibility cloaks, yet an imposter can pose as his very old friend for a whole school year? The castle is supposed to be impenetrable, yet a swarm of Death Eaters find a way in under his nose?
Now you ask, if he's working for Voldemort, why wouldn't he have slipped Harry some poisoned pumpkin juice? All the same answers one could apply to the "Snape is evil" theory come in here. Maybe he was under orders to wait, maybe it he couldn't blow his cover, maybe he has conflicting self-interests. You say, 'but he shows Harry how to defeat Voldemort through the Horcruxes!' Two perfectly good explanations. One, he knows it's a fool's errand and Harry will likely die and/or walk into a trap. Two, he'd be just as happy if Harry ("Dumbledore's man") defeats Voldemort, so everyone would turn to -- Dumbledore. His death could also have many explanations. Whether Snape was on the side of good or evil, he could still get points for killing Dumbledore if Dumbledore was not what he seemed to be.
It all fits together. Come on, blow holes in it, please!
EDIT: I should have said -- I don't remotely think this is real. All I'm saying is, given what we have as of Book 6, isn't it theoretically possible?
Dumbledore is bad.
Yes, I've always liked Dumbledore, but it is a RUSE. Think about it. When kids are in danger, where is Dumbledore? Conveniently "called away." When kids are dying, where is Dumbledore? Just staying out of it, sitting tight. When Voldemort enters Hogwarts twice in two years, who fights him off? Harry. Could Harry be reasonably expected to succeed? No. So gee, wasn't it convenient that "the one wizard Voldemort feared" takes himself off at those precise moments? Snape helps Harry, Fawkes helps Harry, other students and teachers help Harry, but Dumbledore never seems to come to the rescue.
When have we seen Dumbledore defend a student? When have we seen Dumbledore defend the school? The only time we saw Dumbledore get his Jedi on, who was he defending? HIMSELF, from Ministry goons come to take him away. Though he does no active evil, he consistently fails to aid the cause of good. Why does anybody keep Snape around? Because Dumbledore tells them to. He is in a position of power, trusted by everyone, and his chief duties seem to be to baffle and to do nothing. The man can see through invisibility cloaks, yet an imposter can pose as his very old friend for a whole school year? The castle is supposed to be impenetrable, yet a swarm of Death Eaters find a way in under his nose?
Now you ask, if he's working for Voldemort, why wouldn't he have slipped Harry some poisoned pumpkin juice? All the same answers one could apply to the "Snape is evil" theory come in here. Maybe he was under orders to wait, maybe it he couldn't blow his cover, maybe he has conflicting self-interests. You say, 'but he shows Harry how to defeat Voldemort through the Horcruxes!' Two perfectly good explanations. One, he knows it's a fool's errand and Harry will likely die and/or walk into a trap. Two, he'd be just as happy if Harry ("Dumbledore's man") defeats Voldemort, so everyone would turn to -- Dumbledore. His death could also have many explanations. Whether Snape was on the side of good or evil, he could still get points for killing Dumbledore if Dumbledore was not what he seemed to be.
It all fits together. Come on, blow holes in it, please!
EDIT: I should have said -- I don't remotely think this is real. All I'm saying is, given what we have as of Book 6, isn't it theoretically possible?