Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 145224

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
>
> > > Miles:
> > > Just hold this point. What would have happened after this?
> > > ...edited...
> > > 
> > > What you demand of Snape is absolutely senseless self sacrifice.
> > > If he acted that way, the 6th book most probably would be the
> > > last one.
> > 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > I'm with you Miles, and I now ask (again), point blank, what
> > should Snape have done under those circumstances? It's nice 
> > and heartwarmingto say Snape should have died, but that is an 
> > extremely narrow view of the event. Snape dies and THEN.... 
> > What? What happens next, what is the full impact of any 
> > conceivable alternate action on Snape's part?
> > 
> >...edited...
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I am sorry Steve, but I have to say Huh? :-)
> I thought I answered that question multiple times, but I will
> answer again.
> 

bboyminn:

Pardon my noticably snarky attitude, but you haven't answered the
question. You've got a nice heartwarming 'what', but you fail greatly
at the '...then what...?'.

So, I answer your last question first-
ALLA: "Did I answer your question?"

to which I answer - NO.


> Alla continues:
>
> ...edited...
> 
> What Snape should  have done? DD!M Snape I mean. Well, first
> and foremost he should have NOT under any circumstances enter 
> Unbreakable Vow. If Snape will turn out to be DD!M I don't think
> he could ever escape the accusation of extreme stupidity and
> recklessness from me.
> 

bboyminn: 

Yes, but we can't travel back into the past with a lot of wishful
thinking. We have to start at the top of the tower as thing are at
that point in time and answer the question, 'What should Snape do?'.

To some extent I agree about the Vow. But I think on this issue, Snape
is a victim of circumstance. Narcissa askes Snape to promise/Vow to
watch over Draco, and that is what Snape agrees to. Then Narcissa
starts the Unbreakable Vows. The first two items are exactly what
Snape expects, and really are so vague and general as to be of no
concern. Then Narcissa throws the 'Spanner into the Works', or for
Americans, 'a monkey wrench into the gears'. She ask for the third Vow
which makes Snape flinch and look as though he would like to withdraw
his hand.

But what can he do, he's commited to the unexpected and unwelcome
third Vow? It would have looked very strange and suspicious, if Snape
has withdrawn his hand at that point and tried to do some fast/smooth
talking. 

Yes, the Unbreakable Vow was a mistake, but the third Vow was somewhat
forced on him by circumstances, and is not what he originally agreed
to do. Yet, at that point what are his options? How does he get out of
it gracefully and without arrousing suspicious about himself?

> Alla continues to continue:
>
> ...edited...
> 
> Now, what Snape should have done at the Tower? DD!M Snape I 
> mean. ... When you start counting what can you get out of it,
> it stops being a heroic action IMO.
> 

bboyminn:

I might agree, but those who die as heroes in the moment frequently
throw their lives away because they don't weigh their actions to the
best advantage of the greater cause and the greater good. It is one
thing to heroicaly give your life away, but quite another to
tragically throw it away.

> Alla gets to the point:
>
> The book opens with self-sacrifice of the couple for their
> child. Did they expect to get ANYTHING from it? Not the way
> I see it. All James wanted was is for Lily and Harry to live.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Her sacrifice in itself turned to be the ACTION, which gave 
> Harry protection.
> 
> Do I expect Snape to act the same way for Dumbledore? Sure I do. 
> ...edited...
>
> Would anything come out of it? I said in the past, that I don't
> know. Maybe or maybe not, but I expected Snape to TRY at least.
> For example he could have start fighting while sending his 
> Patronus to other Order Members. We had been shown that Snape 
> IS a powerful wizard, I think he may have had a fighting chance
> or at least enough of chance to stall the time to let Harry and 
> Draco to escape.
> 

bboyminn:

So, you expect Snape to sacrific himself on the off and slim chance
that his own death might afford Dumbledore some level of protection?
Sorry, but to my mind that's not heroic scarifice, that merely
throwing your life away on a slim to non-existance and unproven hope
that some good might come out of it.

Yes, I agree it is possible, but I really think the odds are
astronomically against it. The circumstances surrounding Lily's
sacrifice, while they have parallels to Snape's potential scarifice,
are quite different. It is mother and child. Lily is offerred the
chance to live, if she gives up Harry. Yes, these are parallel to
Snape circumstances, but they are not the same, and while the chance
is there, it is slim. 

So, Snape fights and dies. Now what happens to Dumbledore? Does he
live, or does he die despite Snape's sacrific? When Dumbledore dies,
is the enchantment holding Harry released, and does Harry then jump
into the fray? And then, is Harry killed too?

Killing Dumbledore allowed Snape to save Draco and Harry, as well as
himself. It allowed him to end the siege and get the DE's out of the
castle. That protects all the other student who are now coming out of
the Dorms to see what is happening. 


> Alla continues:
>
> After all, that is DD!M Snape primary consideration, isn't it?
> Safety of the boys?
> 
> So, if he dies while defending them THAT would be IMO death of the 
> real hero.
> 

bboyminn:

Well, admittedly, we are just speculating here, but NO I don't see
that as heroic. I see Snape's sacrifice as short sighted and
wastefull. Far from Heroic, it most likely gives Voldemort the upper
hand, and has grave long term consequences. 

Again, Snape sacrificing himself is a warm fuzzy feeling, but we must
ask 'what then?'. Snape is dead. Dumbledore is weak and vulnerable,
quickly followed by dead. Then Harry enters the fray, and he is
quickly dead. Now Death Eaters are pretty much free to run amok at
Hogwarts killing freely and indiscriminatly. How can I view that as
anything other than a waste of human life? 

Now admittedly, there is a slim chance that Harry could have caught
them off guard and defeated them. But, as you said, Dumbledore's
intent, and therefore Snape's mandate, is to protect the boys. Harry
entering the battle would not be consistent with Dumbledore's view of
protecting Harry. He certainly would NOT want Harry entering the
battle and took specific measures to prevent just that.

> Alla concludes:
>
> Now, we of course have the possibility of UV kicking right away,
> but Pippin argued quite nicely today that UV was worded carefully 
> and may not really matter in case Snape did not REALLY try to 
> kill Dumbledore, so I think it is a fair argument to make that 
> if UV was worded so carefully, it may not have matter if Snape
> was stalling for time or somehow started to defend Dumbledore.
> 
> Did I answer your question?
> 
> JMO, Alla


bboyminn:

I've never been one to give much weight to the Unbreakable Vow. First,
who is the arbiter of the Vow? What magical entity or power determines
when Snape has failed? If Snape lives the next 100 years with the
intent to kill Dumbledore, does that count in his favor? Would
Dumbledore and Snape continue to live as long as Snape maintained the
intent to kill Dumbledore but kept postponing the actual act? 

Certainly, Snape would take the Vow into consideration, and in the
heat of the moment, I don't think he really had time analyze and
gamble on potential loopholes in the Vow. Circumstances demanded that
he act. 

So, while you obviously don't, I can't see Snape's sacrific of his own
life as anything more than a grand empty gesture. Certainly, the
wizard world would have considered his actions heroic, but nothing is
really gained from the act. 

As Snape did choose, Draco, Harry, and Snape are alive. Snape got the
DE's out of the Castle with minimum additional damage. Further, in
making their exit, Snape prevents the other DE's from attacking Harry. 

Soldiers die in war, that is a dark and horrible fact. That is what I
see Dumbledore's death as, a necessary but tragic casualty of war.

I do see your 'what', and it has all the trappings of a noble act, but
I ask 'What then?', 'What next?', Snape is dead and then what happens
at the top of the tower? Banking on the self-scarifical protection of
love and sacrific seems an unfathomly long and unlikely bet. A gamble
that has far greater potential for tragic and disasterous consequences.

So, no, I don't think you answered the question, nor do I think you
answered completely or effectively. But of course, that's just my opinion.

As a side note: Even I find it extremely odd that I had my doubts
about Snape until he killed Dumbledore, then against the obvious
evidence, I immediately concluded that he was indeed Dumbledore's Man.
Sort of defies logic, I know.

Steve/bboyminn