"Spinner's End," a canon-based interpretation (Wa: Snape did kill DD with AK

[eggplant107]

No: HPFGUIDX 138851

"justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

> "Silly" is your own opinion, which
> you are of course entitled to

Thanks, and you are entitled to my opinion too.

> but it does not in any way disprove the
> theories you have listed because it is 
> not the sort of opinion that can be
> supported by canon. 

My cannon evidence is that the past 6 books have had small and few
plot holes, have been extremely well plotted, and have been mercifully
free of the idiot plot syndrome where all problems could be solved if
just a few of the characters did the easy and obvious thing.

JKR is a genius so maybe she can find a good Snape plot that actually
works, I doubt it but maybe. However a book based on any good Snape
theory I've read in this or any other group would be a train wreck. 

> To begin with, do you agree, based
> on what we know of him from all six
> books, that Snape is capable of deception? 

Yes I agree, and blessed as I am with extraordinary brainpower I think
you might even consider the possibility that I agree even more than
you do.

> It is probably best not to take anything
> Snape says here at face value

But one thing we must take at face value, his Unbreakable vows because
if he doesn't mean those he's dead meat.

> We need not, for example, take at 
> face value Snape's statement that 
> he didn't realize that Voldemort
> was inside Quirrell's head.

I agree completely, I think he knew from day one that Voldemort had
possessed Quirrell, but of course he never told Dumbledore, or Voldemort.

> Given that deception is a necessary
> skill for a double agent and that
> Snape is an accomplished actor
> (as even Harry admits), he may be
> bluffing when he says that he knows
> what the Dark Lord wants Draco to do.

So in the next book you think we will discover that a fiendishly
clever very experienced double (or triple) agent will cheerfully agree
to make an Unbreakable Vow without the slightest idea what he was
vowing to do. Well, JKR can do anything she wants in the next book so
I can never prove it's imposable, but I think I have proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that it's silly. 

> A lot of us have speculated as to why
> the highly intelligent, logical Snape
> (a point I believe you concede) would
> agree to an Unbreakable Vow 

I can only think of 3 explanations and only 2 of them could produce a
good book:

1) Snape is not nearly as intelligent as you and I had thought he was;
in fact he's dumb as dirt.

2) Snape made the vow to get Bellatrix off his back and as he was only
vowing to do what he intended to do anyway the vow cost him little.

3) Snape had already made the same Unbreakable Vows to Voldemort so
making them again cost him absolutely nothing. 

Eggplant