Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book)

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 144908


Miles
> > Harry is not competent in Occlumency. DDM!Snape assumed (and 
> >Dumbledore  himself assumed it), it could have been a desaster, if
> >Harry knew why  Dumbledore was so sure about Snape's loyality. Just
> >one minute with Voldemort, and Snape's camouflage is history.
 
> Allie:
> 
> That is actually the best explanation I've heard to explain why 
> Dumbledore won't tell Harry the real reason.

Sydney:  

That's what I'd always assumed.  

Allie:

>(I, like Harry, do not 
> believe it is because Snape was sorry for the death of the Potters.  
> Lily, MAYBE, but not James.)

Sydney:

Dumbledore doesn't actually say that this is THE reason that he trusts
Snape-- Harry clearly misinterpreted him. Dumbledore says he BELIEVES
it was the reason Snape turned, but he is acknowledging with the word
'believe' that he is speculating-- he doesn't KNOW. He is offering
Harry a mitigation. However, he uses very different language about the
trust itself:  he says he is CERTAIN that Snape is on his side, he
"trusts him absolutely". If Harry paid a bit more attention, he would
have sorted out that the remorse Snape felt, and the reason Dumbledore
trusts Snape, are two seperate things, and he still doesn't know the
important one. I tend to think the Snape-trust thing is an event,
hopefully a fabulously dramatic one we can see in Pensive-o-vision. 

It's a very nice piece of misdirection on JKR's part, because she has
Snape himself offer the repentance story as the reason for D-dore's
trust to Bellatrix way back at the start of the book.  So it's quite
easy to miss the distinction Dumbledore makes, and accept Harry's
misunderstanding-- a misunderstanding that he proceeds to transmit,
chinese-whispers-wise, to the rest of the Order.

-- Sydney