[HPforGrownups] Assassin!Snape's Next Victim

[wynnde1 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 46833

Hello, Everyone!

I am fascinated by this new theory of Cindy's - that Voldemort will ask Snape 
to kill Karkaroff in order to "prove" his loyalty. (Sorry, but I'm just not 
up to trying an actual TBAY post myself, so this will just be a plain old 
response). For the longest time, I've had it my head that just about the only 
way for Snape to be able to return to Voldemort would be for him to prove 
himself by killing someone. I'd never got around to thinking about whom that 
victim would be. 

Yes, I can definitely see this scenario as not only possible, but probable. 
However, I am troubled by a couple of pieces.  Primarily, I just don't see 
Snape as a ruthless killer who would hunt down Karkaroff and curl up snug in 
his dungeon. And then there's the issue of Dumbledore . . . 

Cindy wrote: 

> "I'm not buying it," George said, shaking his head 
> vigorously.  "Snape would never kill Karkaroff out of loyalty to 
> Dumbledore."
> 
> "Oh, that's exactly what I expect the Snape fans to say," Cindy said 
> with a smirk.  "They'll say that having Snape apprehend and kill 
> Karkaroff as the price of admission back into Voldemort's inner 
> circle is out of character for Snape.
> 

Hmnh. Is it out of character for Snape? More on that later. My real problem 
here is that I find it out of character for Dumbledore. That assumes, of 
course, that Dumbledore knows what Snape is being asked to do. And I just 
don't see Dumbledore sending Snape off to murder someone, even someone like 
Karkaroff. And even if he didn't know about it beforehand, the truth would 
surely out once Karkaroff turned up dead. So, Snape would not only have to 
conceal his actions from Dumbledore beforehand, but would have to do some 
very smooth talking afterwards to explain it. If Snape were to kill someone 
in self-defense, I'm sure Dumbledore would accept that, but not pre-meditated 
murder, even for the "common good." And, since I believe that Dumbledore's 
opinion is VERY VERY important to Snape, if Dumbledore doesn't approve, then 
I'm not sure how Snape would be able to justify it to himself, let alone to 
Dumbledore or anyone else. (I suppose that MAGIC DISHWASHER Dumbledore might 
not have a problem with this? But I don't subscribe to that theory in any 
case).

Cindy wrote:

> "Is it, though?  We know that Snape is proficient at dueling.  We 
> know Snape showed up at Hogwarts knowing a lot of Dark Curses.  We 
> know Snape was ruthless enough to join the DEs in the first place.  
> It sure seems reasonable that Snape had to do some awful things when 
> he was a DE.  We know there will be a war in the next books.  And, 
> George. . . . we know that war is not pretty, and people sometimes 
> have to do awful things in war.  For the common good, you know.  
> 

Here's where you and I may differ in our opinion of what sort of "awful" 
things Snape may have done in the war. I certainly believe that horrendously 
awful things were done by Death Eaters. Rape, torture, murder, pretty much 
any sort of atrocity you can think of are all within the realm of 
possibility. But it was only OTHER Death Eaters who did those things. <G> Not 
my precious Snape. Oops. Did I say precious? <G> (Yes, I must admit I count 
myself among the "SnapeFan" population here) <G>

Seriously, though, I don't believe that Snape, as a Death Eater, ever 
directly killed anyone. Or perhaps killed just one person and the emotional 
aftermath of that for him  was enough to send him running back to 
Dumbledore's camp. (I favour the scenario in which Snape was Voldemort's 
personal potions guy - working on immortality potions and maybe even potions 
which were used to kill people, but which were administered by people other 
than Snape. This would have kept him in good with Voldemort, yet out of some 
of the more "hands on" activities). Originally, I thought that Snape couldn't 
be a killer, because I didn't think that Dumbledore would have taken him back 
if he'd been really, really awful. And that JKR wouldn't have written that 
into the stories. (That's probably not a valid argument). But those things 
aside, I just don't see Snape as being a ruthless killer. He really seems to 
be more bark than bite when it comes right down to it.

Of course, we only have limited information upon which to base our opinions 
of Snape's personality and moral code. As you said, he's proficient at 
duelling and knew lots of curses (according to Sirius, anyway). However, what 
we've seen of him in the "present" day (as far as the books go) is that he is 
mean and nasty and petty, but he still is consistently doing the "right" 
thing - by which I mean he is definitely one of the good guys. Sure, he 
threatens things - like giving Sirius and Remus to the Dementors. But when he 
really had the opportunity (down by the lake in PoA), he DIDN'T call the 
Dementors back, he conjured comfy little stretchers and took everyone back to 
the castle. And many time we've seen what appears to be genuine concern for 
the welfare of the students. Of course, none of this is proof of what he was 
like during his Death Eater days. But the thing I find telling is that he 
LEFT the Death Eaters. I believe this is because he got to a point where his 
own personal sense of ethics would not allow him to continue. He is 
definitely NOT in the same league with someone like Malfoy, who seems not 
only to handle what was expected of him as a Death Eater, but to have 
revelled in it.


> "Oh, Snape won't enjoy being the instrument of Karkaroff's death –- 
> either by leading Karkaroff to slaughter in an ambush for 
> Voldemort's amusement, or by pulling the trigger himself.  But Snape 
> will do it.  Snape will do it for the greater good.  And –- the 
> Snape fans won't enjoy this either -- Snape will do it to spare his 
> own hide.  Snape will sleep nights knowing that if Snape had refused 
> to kill Karkaroff, someone else would.  Yup, Snape will curl up in 
> his dungeon at night knowing that if Snape had refused, that someone 
> else would kill Karkaroff *and* Snape.  Snape will see killing 
> Karkaroff as ugly and disturbing, all right.  Ugly, disturbing and 
> *necessary.*"
> 
> 

Hmnh. In spite of all the things I've just said about Dumbledore and about 
Snape not being a killer, I still do think it is possible that Snape will 
choose to do this, as you say "for the greater good." Yes, I see this as out 
of character for Snape, but don't we all at times do things which are not, 
strictly speaking, "in character" for us? (Okay, well maybe not assassinating 
people and stuff like that, but you know what I mean, right? <G>). But if he 
does actually kill Karkaroff, I think that he will find it far more than 
merely "ugly and disturbing." I don't see Snape taking this in his stride and 
curling up snug in his dungeon. Far more angsty than that. As Marina said in 
another post, it would be a great vehicle for exploring Snape's character. 
But I am really concerned about what killing Karkaroff (or anyone, for that 
matter) might do to Snape. I think this would be incredibly difficult for 
him, making him question his own values and motivations. Can he possibly 
consider himself one of the "good guys" having done something like this? And 
I do believe he wants very much to believe that he is one of the good guys. 
I'm not sure he DOES believe it, but he wants to. And assassinating Karkaroff 
is not going to boost his good-guy self-esteem in the least. 

Well, that's my 2 knuts' worth for tonight. Thanks for putting out such a 
great theory! I'm thrilled to have something new to ponder in my sad, 
obsessed little brain! 

:-)
Wendy
(Wondering if there is another Wendy on the list, and if so should I come up 
with some fabulously clever nickname for myself? Or, in the absence of 
cleverness on my part, just add my surname's initial)?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]