OOtp Spoilers Ahoy: Snape

[mkaliz]

No: HPFGUIDX 67188

A while back, I wrote:

> > It's quite possible that Snape didn't tell Dumbledore about the
> > Pensieve incident. 

Darrin then said: 

> But Snape wasn't the only one who knew. Both Lupin and Sirius knew, and 
> both were outraged that Snape was apparently going to cancel the
lessons. 
> So, failing to get through to Snape, it is logical that they would
have gone to 
> D-Dore. 

Yes, I have no doubt that Lupin and Black brought up the topic with
Dumbledore. But, since we're already in the realm of speculation here,
it's not a given that they also told him that Harry had taken a dip
into Snape's Pensieve. 

I said:

> > Knowing Snape's history, Dumbledore may not have not felt that
> > it was prudent (for Snape's emotional health) to push any further.    

Darrin said:

> Well, glad to know Snape's emotional health is more important than
Harry 
> keeping his mind free of V-Mort, giving away Order secrets, risking
D-Dore's 
> life, and Harry's sanity. 

It's not a question of Snape's welfare taking precedence over Harry's.
It's a simple matter of knowing where a person's limits are. Short of
using the Imperius curse, what exactly was Dumbledore going to do to
force Snape to continue the lessons, blackmail? 

Dumbledore knows that Snape is volatile, impulsive, prone to abuses of
power (which is prob. why he never gets the DADA job), and has a very
*very* sore spot regarding James and Harry Potter. Just how far can
Snape be pushed by Dumbledore without whatever relationship they have
being damaged beyond repair? He's clearly a key member of the Order,
pushing Snape too hard on this issue could lessen his effectiveness
later on. Like any general, Dumbledore has to know and respect the
capabilities and boundaries of his principal officers. The fact that
he *didn't* force Snape to resume the lessons speaks volumes not just
about Snape's personality, but more importantly about Dumbledore's
knowledge of Snape's limitations.

I said:

> >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.

Darrin replied:

> Fine, but this makes me even more skeptical when I read posts -- not 
> necessarily yours -- about how Snape is laying his life on the line,
risking it all 
> to save Harry, doing more than any other Order member, etc., etc.
> 
> It was 20 years back. Snape, when he agreed to switch sides, knew
he'd likely 
> be dealing with people like Sirius, Lupin and James. 
> 
> It seems to me that Snape failed here, as did Harry by even going in
there, but 
> I keep coming back - as I always do with Snape and Harry's relations
- to 
> asking who the adult is and who should understand the importance of
what is 
> going on.

I have not ever claimed that Snape didn't fail in his duties to the
Order. Nor have I ever claimed that Snape is a model of emotional
maturity. ;-) 

I have only said that Snape has limitations and that there are
logical, understandable reasons why he behaves as he does. Just
because we might think that he should "grow up and get over it"
doesn't negate the fact that many real people--even people who are
ordinarily all sweetness and light--*don't* get over such events.
Snape's current behavior did not just spring into being from the void.
Nor did Harry's, for that matter. Understanding or explaining *why*
they behave as they do is not the same thing as 'apologizing' for
their behavior in the past or the present.

It's unfortunate that Snape stopped the lessons, yes. But there were
clearly mitigating circumstances (Harry's actions, for instance) and
sometimes, no matter how hard we try, our best is simply not good
enough. If Snape had been unable to continue the lessons because of a
physical problem, there would be little, if any outrage. But the fact
that he may have (I'll allow for other nefarious interpretations!)
called a halt because of emotional distress seems to cause a
kerfluffle. The guy is not a machine; not everyone is capable or
willing to forgive and/or forget and not all tasks can just be
'ordered done', no matter how desperately they need doing.
 
Darrin said:

> Snape has achieved a position of power, while his tormentors are, at
the time 
> of the Penseive scene, dead, on the run from the law, an outcast
because of 
> his nature and a betrayer of the others.
> 
> I agree that Snape might not be able to forgive, but he has
outlasted and 
> outlived the Marauders. And again, he has been given a position of
trust by D-
> Dore, which in this case, he failed to honor.

I agree with you, yes. But, I think that the *why* of his failure is
important. Perhaps, as you've theorized, he failed because he's really
loyal to Voldemort. Perhaps, as I've theorized, he was simply too
mortified/violated that the son of his childhood nemesis witnessed his
public humiliation in front of the school. I've explained why I think
your theory about the lessons is unlikely, but neither of us will know
for certain until books 6 & 7. :-)
 
Darrin said:

> Snape is around the Order all the time and they use V-Mort.
Dumbledore uses 
> it. 
 
But *Snape* isn't using it. My tentative idea here is that, given
Voldemort's power, perhaps he can sense when someone who is magically
linked to him (i.e. via the Dark Mark) is thinking/talking about him.
I've always wondered if the reason most people say You-Know-Who is
because they're afraid of "calling up" Voldemort if they speak his
name. How more likely would that be if you're also magically linked to
the guy? 

> And this doesn't quite explain calling him "the Dark Lord" instead
of "he-
> who-must-not-be-named." 

If he's truly a spy in Voldemort's camp, he wouldn't want to get into
the habit and then slip up accidentally and call him by name--no doubt
it's a sign of disrepect, likely punishable by the Cruciatus. ::veg::

> And again, Harry has faced and defeated Voldemort four times by this
time 
> and has been told by D-Dore to use the name. I resent Snape daring to 
> suggest that Harry has to bow to his wishes of what to call the guy.
> 
> Harry has, as I said in an earlier post, earned the right to call
Voldemort 
> "Tommy-Boy" if he wishes, or "Lord Stinky of the Athlete's Foot."

I have no opinion on whether Harry should be required to call him one
thing or another. *But* if I were him, I'd think carefully about what
the only other person on hand who is directly linked to Voldemort
might say about names being powerful.

> Good points, all.  BUT... again, Harry, whether Snape likes it or
not, has 
> shown a knack for getting things right, and Hermione is the
brightest kid in 
> school. And Snape certainly didn't appear to be bursting with logic
in that 
> scene.

LOL! No, logic isn't playing much of a part there for Snape!

Darrin said:

> But, there is an interesting point to be found in the wolfsbane.
> 
> Snape said he went to Lupin's office to give him the potion. Snape
saw the 
> map, saw everyone on it, and went to the Shrieking Shack.
> 
> What happened to the potion? Remember, Lupin doesn't change until the 
> moonlight hits him, meaning he wasn't dangerous until he got outside. 

I'm very confused by your statement here. 

It was my understanding that Lupin would change into a werewolf
whenever the moon rose, whether he was inside or not. Otherwise, why
need the Shrieking Shack (or wolfsbane) at all? Why not just make
certain that he always stayed indoors away from windows during the
full moon? And, I seem to recall (don't have the books handy) that
Lupin was already transformed and inside the Shack when he went for
Snape, during their school days.

Darrin said:

>So, if 
> Snape went there figuring he'd catch himself a werewolf, and an escaped 
> prisoner, and be the great hero of the day by saving the three
meddling kids, 
> WHERE THE HELL WAS THE POTION???? 

No doubt, Snape probably did want to play the hero! As for where the
potion was...very good question. Along with your theories, I offer the
possibility that perhaps it doesn't "travel well" and/or he had no
time to bottle it up and take it with him. I don't have a pet theory
in this case.
  
I said: 
> > 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'.

Darrin said:
> Snape apparently feels honor-bound to James, even though James' motives 
> for saving him are certainly clouded by a desire to keep Sirius and
Lupin out 
> of trouble. 

Although that's the prevailing theory for why Snape behaves as he
does, I can think of other possibilities as well.

I said:

> > 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! :-)

Darrin said:

> Maybe because D-Dore doesn't seem to get off on tormenting students. I 
> mean, it's all fine and good (in general, i don't mean to single you
or anyone 
> else out) to call Snape complex and multi-layered, until pests like
me point out 
> the nasty layers and what they could mean.

I don't perceive you to be a pest, nor do I feel singled out! :-) 

Snape *is* a multilayered character with plenty of (potentially fatal)
faults. I'm certainly not blind to those faults, nor to their
implications. 

However, I don't believe that the existence of those flaws means that
he is, a priori, an evil person and that his actions must always stem
from selfish and/or malevolent motives. Sometimes, the Good Guys or
the 'Guys on Our Side' just aren't 'nice'. Just take a look at James
and Sirius.

--kai