Snape didn't kill DD with AK!! And here's the evidence

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 138736

lolita wrote:
> And how exactly is character development unrelated to the plot? A 
> little literary lecture:

zgirnius:
You'll have to forgive my ignorance. My education is in Pure 
Mathematics, and I did all my (pretty extensive) Humanities electives 
in Philosphy, History, and Foreign Languages...I like to read books. 
Dissecting them always failed to appeal...(but then, most people I 
know say the same about Math, who would have thought it?! :-)  )

lolita again: 
> This digression aside, has not Snape demonstrated, over and over 
> again, that he is capable of extreme hatred needed to cast AK 
> (remember the confrontation with Black in the Shrieking Shack)? 

zgirnius:
We don't actually know what is required to cast a successful AK. We 
have certainly never seen Snape cast one. He planned to leave Sirius 
to the Dementors, actually, for whatever reason. (Though I would 
grant that in that scene, Dementors seeming a worse fate would make 
great sense as the reason!) 

However, in defense of Snape, at that point he believed that Sirius 
was a mass-murderer of Muggles and his old friend Peter, as well as 
the betrayer of the Potters (I suspect Lily was what he cared more 
about...) If he were able to hate Sirius enough to AK him at this 
point, it would be understandable. AKing Dumbledore is another 
matter. If Snape has not been duping him all these years, if Snape 
really was remorseful when he went to Dumbledore lo these many years 
ago, Snape ought to be profoundly grateful to Dumbledore. For 
believing him and giving him a position of trust, for the opportunity 
to work to undo the evil he feels he has done, and for helping to 
keep him out of Azkaban despite his prior affiliation with the Death 
Eaters.

Now, it is possible the AK works kind of like a Patronus, where any 
sufficiently hateful thought can fuel the spell regardless of the 
target. If that is the case, then I agree, it matters not at all what 
spell Snape used. He could just remember how he felt in the SHack 
with Sirius and use that to kill DD. But to me this makes the AK 
less "Unforgivable" than, say, Crucio. We saw Harry really angry at 
Bellatrix in Book 5, he really wanted to hurt her, yet he was not 
able to make Crucio work properly. It was not enough to really hate 
her, he had to *enjoy* hurting her. I think many people who have had 
the wrong sorts of experiences in life can probably call up some 
pretty hate-filled moments. 

Lolita:
> he even invented an innocent little spell like Sectumsempra when he 
> was 16! 

zgirnius:
I think this is also not as straighforward as it seems as an 
indication of Snape's character. In the Pensieve scene of Book 5, 
Snape casts some nonverbal spell which causes a small cut to open on 
James' cheek. Is this Sectumsempra? If so, why so little damage? One 
explanation is that Snape was still perfecting the spell. Another, is 
that the spell can be used by a skilled caster in a controlled 
manner. One can see less than entirely Dark uses for such a spell. 
Harry's gutting of Draco could have been because Harry was not a 
skilled user of that spell, not because the spell *must* work that 
way.

Further, even if Sectumsempra is as Dark as it seems in that chapter, 
it appears that Snape also developed the counter curse (whatever that 
singing over Draco was that he did.) We know Snape has always been 
into the Dark Arts. Apparently he has longed for the post of DADA 
Master. Thus, he could have developed Sectumsempra and its 
countercurse out of sheer love for the subject, on an intellectual 
level. I'm not saying this makes him a saint...just not a totally 
black villain.

lolita:
> The revealing 
> of Snape as the good guy will have any literary value only if his 
> innocence is proven after his demise. Everything else would be a 
> betrayal of the genre's expectations.

zgirnius:
I'm not sure I agree, my first response is, which genre? (I love how 
the books have grown to be a wild mix of fantasy, boarding school 
story, growing up story, spy thriller, mystery, and the kitchen 
sink...) However, I am willing to concede your point. Let us assume 
Snape goes out in a blaze of glory, and the Good Guys are left 
standing about saying Huh? Snape?! Again, what will be the *proof*? 
Someone will have to go back and discover the "true story" to tell us 
the readers about what was really up with Snape. And some of the 
discrepancies people are discussing may provide someone the clues 
which will lead to the discovery of the whole story, whatever it is. 
Or she could go the Pensieve Memory route, of course...

Lolita:
>The Still Alive!Dumbledore 
> theory has the same reek as the Sirius-Is-Not-Really-Dead one.

zgirnius:
Yup. Me too. He's dead, Jim. (Sorry, Trek reference, could not help 
myself).

I really enjoy on this list how discussing ideas with people from 
different backgrounds can really help clarify my thoughts and teach 
me new things, thanks!