Hagrid/DD/Lord Snape (was Re: Sleeping Snape Distrusted by all)

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 138278

 
jazmin wrote:

However,  what surprises me is that while noone would believe things Harry 
said before,  the OotP is too quick to believe him this time.  Even with Snape 
fleeing  with the DEs with Malfoy, the only person not a DE to witness Snape 
killing  Dumbledore was Harry.   A kid.  Seems too easy for people to  believe 
Harry so quickly.  






Julie says:
I thought this went over too easily too, especially with McGonagall.  She
has worked with Snape sixteen years, sometimes closely, and even
seemed to bond at moments over certain things like calling Lockhart
on his supposed DADA talents. They all accepted him as one of them
long enough to at least be *surprised* by his apparent defection.
 
Yet, I'm more interested in the exception to this rule--Hagrid. Why
did Hagrid react differently than the others, to the point of  protesting
Harry's version more than once (and, to Harry's mind, suspecting
it was likely Harry was concussed and confused about what he saw)?
Even MORE interesting, why, once everyone else has accepted
Harry's story, do we at this point not get Hagrid expressing some 
acceptance of Snape as betrayer? Hagrid does show up again,  yet
never mentions Snape. Does anyone else find this suspicious?


Larry wrote:
Dumbledore states clearly that to kill,  to take a life
unjustifiably, forever splits the soul; damaging  or
destroying it irrepairably and irretrievably. I cannot
understand how  we can have gotten to know Dumbledore
as we have and believe for a second  that he would
sacrifice a human soul for any reason. Let alone for
so  craven a thing as the placement of a spy.
 
Julie says:
To me, the key word is UNJUSTIFIABLY. If there was 
justification for Snape taking DD's life--if DD was  already
as good as dead, and Snape killed DD at his  request
because DD's death would best serve the cause  of 
defeating Voldemort, then Snape's soul would not be 
split or damaged,  correct?
 
That's the way I read it anyway. That "take a life 
unjustifiably" leaves some wiggle room. 
 
 
Sue said:
Snape is a bully to the kids, yes. He seems to get on  okay with 
the rest of the staff, though  in this last book they express  doubts 
(but only near the end, after he's gone).  In the past he's been  a 
team player on staff, e.g. in CoS, but mostly seems to be pretty 
much  a loner. If he was a Muggle, he'd be working in a chemistry 
lab somewhere,  doing research and being rude to anyone who 
bothered him, going home to his  boring flat and maybe a cat, 
and cooking pasta for one before bedtime. Or  he'd be the 
university head of faculty whom staff and students avoided  
unless absolutely necessary. I don't think he has what it takes to 
be  head honcho on a large scale and he's bright enough to 
know this. Voldemort  was what he was right from the beginning,  
as we see in HBP. IMO, it's  just a bit late for Snape to be going 
for world domination, if that's what  he wanted.
 
Julie says:
I agree. Snape reminds me of Gregory House, the  brilliant TV
doctor who would prefer to treat his patients without  actually
having--ick!--contact with them (because they all lie  anyway). 
I think Snape would prefer to teach his students  without 
actually having contact with them, if only it could be  arranged!
 
Like House, Snape is a misanthrope. He'd rather be  alone
in his dungeon room or in his claustrophic sitting  room 
surrounded by his books and potions, than with others.  So
what does he want with WW domination? He'd be more  than
happy just to be left alone, as long as his genius is  well
recognized. 
 
Julie 


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