OOtp Spoilers Ahoy: Snape

[mkaliz]

No: HPFGUIDX 67086

Jean said:
> 
> > --Or maybe Snape thought he _could_ do it, only to have the pensieve
> > incident strain his (limited) patience past its limits, which 
> argues that he didn't expect Harry to snoop the way he did. Maybe 
> there's a _lot_ more to  the underpants incident than we saw, too, 
> making it even more traumatic than what we were allowed to observe.

then Darrin replied:

> D-Dore is laying it on the line for Harry at the end, being harsh 
> about Sirius' treatment of Kreacher, being harsh about his own 
> culpability and not letting Harry recklessly blame Snape.
> 
> Yet D-Dore blames Snape's weakness, and his own failure to recognize 
> it, as the reason Occlumency failed.
> 
> Why didn't D-Dore say, "Yes, well, Snape was furious with you after 
> you barged into his Penseive and it hampered his ability to teach 
> you"? 

It's quite possible that Snape didn't tell Dumbledore about the
Pensieve incident. The fact that Dumbledore *didn't* bring it up
suggests to me that Snape kept mum on the subject. Otherwise, I think
Dumbledore would have brought up the incident where Harry had
trespassed into his own Pensieve. 

Dumbledore knew from the start that Snape would find it difficult to
give the lessons, all he may have needed from Snape was the admission,
"Albus, I tried. But I simply can not teach Potter any longer. I just
can't." Knowing Snape's history, Dumbledore may not have not felt that
it was prudent (for Snape's emotional health) to push any further.    
 
> That tells me D-Dore believes Snape should have kept at it, but his 
> hatred of a man dead 16 years got in the way. 

What Dumbledore said was that "some wounds run too deep for the
healing," acknowledging the fact that some trauma simply cannot be
overcome, no matter how much the wounded party might wish it and no
matter how grave the necessity. 

Whatever it was that happened between Snape and James clearly scarred
Snape deeply. We've gotten a glimpse at what that might have entailed,
but we don't know everything that transpired. Regardless, there are
plenty of real-life cases in which a victim might find it difficult or
impossible to work with the perpetrator of the crime (i.e. rape, child
abuse, assault) I guess don't see it as some huge personal failing on
Snape's part that he can't get by what happened. Everyone has a limit
and Dumbledore and Harry both found out where Snape's was, much to
their detriment.

Also, it's not just Snape's fault that the lessons failed. Harry put
little effort into them and zero effort into trying to get Snape to
resume them after they'd been cancelled.

> It was two-on-one. Granted, Snape might have felt four-on-one, but 
> James and Sirius were the ones attacking him. And they weren't 
> ganging-up on him so much as tag-teaming. Never do James and Sirius 
> attack both at once.
> Small comfort to Snape, I grant, but Lupin and Wormtail weren't part 
> of the attack except not to stop it. And if you indict them, you have 
> to indict everyone there who stood by and let it happen, which is 
> everyone but Lily.

No, James and Sirius didn't simultaneously throw hexes at Snape, but
the situation was still in their favor and they coordinated their
attack on Snape. In my book, that makes it a 2-on-1 situation. 

Wormtail and Lupin were probably the only two people who had enough
personal influence over Jamee and Sirius to get them to stop--and
Lupin was a prefect! Lily appeared to have her own agenda in halting
the abuse and that agenda didn't seem much based in Snape's safety,
but more in her desire to take James down a peg or two. She abandon's
Snape to his fate quite readily when he insults her.

> The fact is, we still don't know for sure how isolated or common the 
> Penseive incident was. There are clues that it happened more, but 
> there are also clues that Snape, at other times, gave as good as he 
> got. 

That all may well be true. However, it does not negate the fact that
the event in question was likely a very deeply damaging one and may
well have long lasting reprecussions for Snape, both socially and
emotionally. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, and in
this case, I'd say that Snape lost that metaphorical eye and he's not
about to forgive James & Co. for it.
 
> > Of course Snape should grow up and deal with it. But at this time 
> he's spying on Voldemort (though his insistence on using the 
> phrase "Dark Lord"  was likely carefully taught to him, likely under 
> Crucio, when he was a DE earlier), 
> 
> Snape needed Crucio to remember to call V-Mort the Dark Lord? Once 
> again, I must ask how stupid this guy is. I refer once again to how 
> the Sirius-Snape conversation about the Shrieking Shack could have 
> went.

I think that it's useful to remember that Snape, like Harry, has been
Marked by Voldemort. There is no guarantee that the Dark Mark, like
Harry's scar, isn't a "two-way device". Given the thin line between
thoughts and intentions and the fact that Voldemort is a Legiliemans,
saying "Voldemort" aloud might well attract Voldemort's attention in
some way. Albus can say the name without fear because he's powerful --
a magical equal to Voldemort. A spy like Snape and a
powerful-but-largely-untaught 'pawn' like Harry would do well to avoid
calling attention to themselves and their thoughts by saying
Voldemort's name aloud, especially now that the two-way link is active
again.

> > Think of what courage it must have taken in PoA, for instance, to 
> >go out and get the students (and he remembers to get stretchers for 
> >them, too, instead of that Mobilicorpus routine, which I suspect is 
> >contraindicated for head wounds, like anyone actually cares about 
> >anything that happens to Snape)
> 
> Think of what bull-headedness it took to refuse to listen to the 
> slightest possibility that Sirius might be innocent, especially since 
> he more than anyone knew how tight Sirius and James were. How 
> different it all would have turned out if Snape -- instead of 
> dreaming about medals (apologies to Grey Wolf and his multitasking 
> Snape, a theory which makes my head hurt) -- had listened to Harry, 
> who after all, DID rescue the Stone and figure out where the Chamber 
> of Secrets was.

A couple of points: 

Why on earth would Snape be willing to listen? This is, after all, a
guy who lured him to the Shrieking Shack and tried to have him killed. 

Not to mention that: 1) Sirius was from a family who openly supported
Voldemort--blood can be thicker than water. 2) Other wizards who knew
the Potters and Sirius very well (i.e Dumbledore) believed that Sirius
was the secret keeper and that he was responsible for the death of
Pettigrew and the bystanders. 3) It's a pretty darned implausible
story when you get right down to it! 4) The full moon was rising,
Snape knew that Lupin had skipped his wolfsbane, that Black was at
least capable of planning a murder, and Snape had three children whose
safety was his responsibility. It's not like there was a lot of time
for *anyone* to patiently listen to a convoluted story that defied
conventional wisdom.

And yes, it would have turned out *vastly* different if Snape had
listened. But, that pretty much the point, right? The books often hang
on a slim thread of If Only, so this is nothing new.
 
> > _despite_ the fact he knows there's a werewolf out there 
> who 'forgot' to  take his potion (not to mention dementors, which he 
> probably knows lots more about than he likes). 
> 
> Yup, good thing Sirius was there to save him from the werewolf and 
> Harry was there to save him from the dementors. Wonder if Snape 
> thanked them?

Why would Snape have thanked them? After all, if they hadn't knocked
him unconscious in the first place he wouldn't have needed 'saving'.

> >  Then DD waves that Order of Merlin under his nose (at
> > last! Some recognition!) only to have it taken it away.
> > 
> > But of course, we can't give Snape any credit. That would be wrong.
> > 
> 
> No credit here until I know for sure what he's all about. 

I can understand wanting to 'reserve judgement' on Snape's motives. If
he turns out to be Evil (tm), then all the Good deeds he does may turn
out to have been in service of an Evil Goal. 

However, in absence of evidence to the contrary, I think that it's
worthwhile to at least acknowledge that not all Snape's actions are
malevolent or have negative consequences or necessarily have Evil
motives behind them. 

In that way, he's no different than Dumbledore, whose motives are
*also* often shrouded in mystery, but who seems to catch a break more
often than Snape in public opinion polls! :-)

--kai