[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and the Prank...some thoughts

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 47104

Hi --

> I said:
> > There's also just so much we don't know about the Prank. 
> > What did Snape say or do to motivate Sirius to 
> > tell him how to follow them? What were 
> > Sirius' intentions?  
> > ....we do *NOT* know what Snape did to 
> > motivate the Prank. We can
> > conjecture from now till sundown,
> > but until OOP or Books 6 or 7 clues 
> > us in, we're only guessing. 

Judy replied:
> This isn't my reading of the canon.  I think we *do* know what 
Snape was doing -- he was sneaking around, trying to get the 
Marauders introuble. He was also being a slimy, oily, 
greasy-haired kid. And that's it. Sirius has had two opportunities 
in canon to say what Snape did to deserve the Prank, and that's 
all he's come up with.  <<

No.  We know what Sirius *said* flippantly in the Shrieking Shack while he was under extreme physical and emotional distress, corroborated to some small extent by his later statements in the cave in GoF.  Is Sirius to be believed here?  Is he telling the whole truth?  Does he even know the full truth of what Snape was up to?  Does he have reasons why he might not want to reveal the whole truth to Harry and his friends?  You can't trust these characters at face value, you know.  <g>

Snape was apparently "always" sneaking around and trying to get them into trouble.  Okay.  So, what exactly caused Sirius to snap that particular time?  Presumably he'd had prior opportunities to let Snape in on the little secret but had gritted his teeth and resisted the temptation.  Why *then* -- what was it about that *particular* moment in time that led Sirius to play the "Prank"?  My theory is that there were extraordinary circumstances relating to the Prank and that, for plot reasons, we the readers can't know the full story at this time.   Or, that we just *don't* know the full story at this time .... whether JKR could have been more revealing about the details earlier in the series is only a judgment we'll be able to make with hindsight after all. 

Pippin argued:

<<<<<There's even better canon than that. Consider Dumbledore's 
testimony in the Pensieve:

"Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However he 
*rejoined* our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall..." 
(emphasis mine.) 

By that time  Dumbledore knew  enough about Snape to satisfy 
himself that Severus was "now no more a Death Eater than I 
am." Which means that whatever Snape became under LV's 
influence, there was previously a time when he was on "our 
side." I don't believe Dumbledore would have said this if the 
Snape he knew at Hogwarts was a Dark Wizard or a natural 
sociopath. Could it be that Snape  was so suspicious of the 
Marauders because he thought *they* were involved with  Lord 
Voldemort?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm afraid I'm not following how this point of canon suggests what might have motivated Sirius to play the Prank?  I agree that it certainly suggests that, whatever Snape's reputation in the eyes of the Marauders, Dumbledore thought him to be an upstanding citizen during his Hogwarts years.  <g>  Are you suggesting that Snape, suspicious of the Marauders' involvement with the Dark Side, said something accusatory to Sirius who then snapped & impulsively pulled the Prank?  That's possible ... but again, it's just another conjecture or theory.  My point is that we don't *know* yet from *canon* what motivated the Prank, so how can we assess fault or blame in the situation without the full story?  I guess my other point is that I doubt that Sirius pulled the Prank in a vacuum ... there must have been some extraordinary *trigger* to set off the chain of events.  So, I'm guessing Our Man Snape is not as entirely the pitiable victim that some people would like to paint him.

Penny  


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