The Eggplant and Snape and I (was: It's over, Snape is evil)

[Jessica Bathurst]

No: HPFGUIDX 138759

eggplant:

> ...the idea that the OOP would agree to let their most powerful,
> wisest, and kindest wizard get murdered just to incrementally increase
> Voldemort's trust in Snape is ridiculous, especially when it is likely
> to have the exact opposite effect. Think back over history, when a
> dictator's general wins some huge victory it may increase the
> dictator's respect for the general but it never increases his trust.
> It is the incompetent general that the troops think of with contempt
> that the dictator feels unthreatened by.

I have no doubt that the OOP would never agree to this plan, which is why I 
don't think they had anything to do with it.  Either Snape was working 
alone, or he had an agreement with Dumbledore.  (Dumbledore seems to think 
he's plenty expendable himself, drinking unknown poisons and stuff.)

I'm not certain if I buy the whole Voldemort=dictator analogy, as right now 
big V's running what amounts to a large gang (did you make the Mafia analogy 
or did someone else?  That seems more accurate.), but either way, Voldemort 
requires his followers to prove their loyalty again and again.  Killing 
Dumbledore would put a big credit in Snape's account, I'm just sayin'.

> "And now," the commentator said in a low hushed voice, "The next
> member of the Snape lovers team will attempt a mental Reverse Flying
> Triple back Somersault with a degree of difficulty of 4.2, .... and so ....
> ah too bad, that must have hurt." 

Oh, THAT's what happened to my back.  I thought I just slept wrong.

> Nobody is that stupid, if you make an Unbreakable Vow to kill somebody
> it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that will lead to. 

Not if you think you're making a vow about something else (protecting 
Draco), and then get the surprise third section.  (That fabled twitch, 
whatever it means, is in there for a reason.)  There's been a lot of 
discussion about what the wording of the UV requires Snape to do, so I won't 
go into again, but I'm sure he was working any and all loopholes.  Why else 
would he be hounding Draco for information?  If the kid screwed it up, Snape 
could just show up and take care of it, just like he did at the bell tower.  
But also:

> I do say that the idea Snape made an
> Unbreakable Vow because a pretty woman batted her eyelashes at him, or
> on a whim, or he didn't know what he was vowing to do, or that he just
> didn't think it through, is, well?.. silly. There is just no other
> word for it.

Even though this wasn't written to me, I'd like to point out that many men 
have been dragged into sketchy situations by ego-stroking weepy (or 
not-so-weepy) women.  King David, Mark Antony, Gary Hart - the list goes 
on...

> If one of his lowly Death Eaters had killed Harry after Voldemort had
> tried to do it personally 5 times and failed disastrously each and
> every time it would look bad, it would look very very bad. Why should
> we follow this Bozo who can't even kill a little boy, let's follow the
> man who actually killed the Chosen One.  

It's still a stupid (if incredibly common) choice for a bad guy to make.  I 
stand by that.  But you've got an uncanny connection to the mind of 
Voldemort.

> but if he is the sort of man you and I think he is what possible
> reason would he have to be loyal to Dumbledore if it conflicts
> with his goals? 

If his goal is to destroy Voldemort, there's no conflict of purpose, just 
one of method.

Jessica, previously:
> > He does, however, have a very real
> > (if completely personal) sense of
> > what is "right," and he acts accordingly.

Eggplant:
> The only time I've seen Snape do anything good is when he saved
> Harry's life in book 1 and he did that because he heard the Prophecy
> and needed Harry to get rid of Voldemort for him. 

I didn't say "good," I said "right, " which is slightly different.  Snape, 
from the looks of things, hates teaching, but we never see him come to class 
unprepared, and he does try to actually teach these kids potions.  I know 
there are plenty of educators on this board, so I ask you:  what do your 
colleagues who genuinely hate teaching do?  I had teachers who came to class 
drunk, who let us talk for half the period, who never gave tests or graded 
homework.  Snape must feel some sort of duty toward teaching, because he is 
doing his best at it.  That, to him, is the "right" thing to do.  (The fact 
that Snape apparently also thinks that it's right to verbally abuse his 
students is a subject for another post.  Although I should point out that my 
teacher-husband is sad that we won't be getting any more Snape classroom 
moments - there's a bit of a wish-fullfillment thing going on there.)

> So, so Snape didn't have enough time to figure out it might be a good
> idea to kill the Death Eaters but he did have enough time to decide to
> murder Dumbledore. Back flip time.

Two different issues.  (And how could I possibly do another back flip?  Did 
you SEE what the East German judge gave me?)  We were discussing the issue 
of surprise - once Snape enters the room, any surprise advantage he may have 
is gone.  I assume that the time duration from the moment Snape enters the 
room to the time he kills Dumbledore is about fifteen seconds.  I also 
assume that he can only kill one DE at a time via wand, that he's not trying 
to hurt Draco, that Dumbledore is concerned about protecting Harry (whether 
Snape knows he's there or not is moot, but he seems unsurprised that Harry 
knows he killed Dumbledore), and that Dumbledore is useless in a fight.  If 
Snape kills one DE, he might have enough time to kill another before he's 
set upon by the remaining hyped-up and extremely trigger-happy DEs, whom he 
will then have to fight, along with Grayback, all the while not hurting 
either Draco or invisible Harry.  That's not a strategy I could figure out 
in fifteen seconds, even if I didn't have a UV hanging over my head.

This is fun - I feel like I'm on the McLaughlin Group.  Eleanor!

Yours,
Jessica