Bangers and their bangs (was: A Credo For George (SHIP))

[moongirlk]

No: HPFGUIDX 35564

I said: 
> > The ambush thing... it just doesn't make any sense to me.  Not 
that I 
> > don't think there could be an ambush, but I don't think that: 
> > 
> > 1.Dumbledore would require such a thing.  He doesn't exact any 
> > similar kind of proof from Harry, Sirius, Ginny, etc. in the 
books, 
> > and it's not consistent with his character in my mind.
> 

Cindy, my fellow figure-skating fan replied:
> True, Dumbledore doesn't make Harry, Sirius or Ginny do anything 
> dramatic to prove their loyalty.  But why should he?  Ginny is a 
> little kid who was clearly possessed.  Harry never did anything 
evil 
> that would require that he prove his loyalty to Dumbledore.  As for 
> Sirius, Sirius could change back and forth into an animagus to 
> demonstrate his innocence.  

I wasn't referring to them proving their loyalty, but that he didn't 
require something from them to prove that their stories (some of 
which sounded rather bizzarre) were true.  He tends to trust people, 
often to the point of allowing baddies right in under his own roof.  
And I think he does this by considered choice.  I think part of 
Dumbledore's M.O. is that he gets people's best by expecting the best 
of them.  Sometimes it backfires (like with Quirrel, Crouch/Moody, 
etc.), but overall it has worked out well for him (like with Hagrid, 
the trio, the Marauders, and here I'll put Snape).  I think 
Dumbledore had his reasons for believing Snape was sincere (I don't 
have a theory of my own as to what they are yet), but more than that 
he chose to believe *in* Snape and it's that choice that has cemented 
Snape's loyalty to him, since nobody else has ever dared do such a 
thing.  

And to my other point...:
> 
> Kimberly again:
> 
> > 2.An ambush would necessarily prove anything.  Someone else 
(can't 
> > remember who - sorry!) has already said that V wouldn't mind 
> >setting 
> > some of his people up to get Snape in Dumbledore's camp as a 
spy.  
> > What's more, setting up your former compatriots doesn't seem the 
> >best 
> > way to prove that you wouldn't do the same to the current.  
> 

...Cindy replied:

> Maybe the best defense is a good offense on this one.  Let's say 
> Snape walked into Dumbledore's office, burst into tears, bawling 
> about his Love of Lily, and begging to be allowed back into 
> Dumbledore's camp.  He even gives Dumbledore all of his old tear-
> stained pictures of Lily to prove the strength of his love.  
> (Ewwww!).  Dumbledore gives Snape a good twinkling and can just 
> *tell* that Snape is sincere.  Well, if Dumbledore is such a good 
> judge of character, why was Peter able to spy for a whole year, 
right 
> under Dumbledore's nose?  Dumbledore suspected there was a spy in 
his 
> camp; why didn't he just interview everyone and twinkle at them 
until 
> he got to Peter?
> 

To which I counter... huh?  Twinkle at him?  
Ok, I do actually understand what you mean, but... I've never (ever 
ever ever) been of the belief that Dumbledore is omniscient.  I don't 
think he can "twinkle at" people (although it sounds really cute!) 
and know their thoughts and motivations.  I *do* think he's a pretty 
good judge of character, but I shamelessly hope that he's not 
revealed to be a mind-reader or something.  That just squicks me.  
Blech!  I'm not saying, either, that Snape provides no tangible proof 
of his change of heart (nor that he necessarily does), only that I 
don't think an ambush would be the proof, or that that would be the 
kind of proof that would impress Dumbledore.  

> The answer, in my view, is that Dumbledore can't smoke out a spy 
that easily.  

So then here we agree.

> Accepting Snape's ambush of his best friends wouldn't be a 
> 100% guarantee that Snape's conversion was true, but it was sure 
> better than nothing.  It also has the fringe benefit of taking out 
> several dangerous opposition soldiers at the same time.  

But if D were all excited about taking out enemy soldiers, why would 
he praise Harry for sparing Pettigrew?  I don't have an answer for 
that, but it seems strange.

<snip descriptions of Mercy I and Prince> 

> Mercy II, however, is alive and well and has been incorporated as a 
> central plank of Big Bang.  Not only that, Mercy II has the mild 
but 
> always-wavering approval of George, the last time I checked.  The 
> idea there is that Snape converted because of his life debt to 
> James.  DE life was not all it was cracked up to be, but Snape 
> figured he would have to live with his decision to be a DE.  Once 
> can't just bounce back and forth between Voldemort and Dumbledore 
on 
> a whim, after all.  But when Harry was born, Snape learned 
Voldemort 
> was going to kill James and Harry (or perhaps Snape was assigned 
this 
> job himself).  Snape simply couldn't go through with this, though 
he 
> would have secretly enjoyed killing James.  The life debt to James 
> prevented Snape from even assisting in James' death.  Snape *had* 
to 
> leave the DEs for that reason.

I think I could buy Mercy II as a possibility, but I'd make it a part 
of the gradual George-like change of heart.  Except that it seems 
kinda iffy to fit it into the timeline.  Hmmm... will have to mull it 
over.

I also like that Steady State theory.  Hmmm.  I think I'll take 
Steady George with some little whispy bangs.  Big Bangs give me '80s 
flashbacks.

kimberly
liking the cafeteria-style theorizing