Heroes and Not - What should Snape Have Done?.

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 145389

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" <vuurdame at x...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> 
> > So, we can't read much into Snape not killing Harry for just this
> > reason, but I don't think this same reasoning applies to Snape not
> > allowing the other DE to kill Harry.
> > 
>
> Gerry
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you here. What reasoning are you referring
> to here? Snape knows if he kills Harry he will be toast. ...
> 
> Actually I think LV cannot risk even a mediocre DE to get away
> with killing Harry, because he will still have done something
> that LV could not. That can give a person airs. And can make
> him less loyal. If you are truly paranoid, you do not take these
> kind of risks. 
> 
> If Snape wanted Harry dead he would have .... He did not. He 
> protected Harry. Did he do it because he is DDM? Or because he
> so loyal to LV ...
> 
> Gerry
>


bboyminn:

First, I'm aware that I rambled a bit and probably wasn't that clear
in my intent. 

I agree with you about Snape. Snape is too smart and too powerful, and
if he killed Harry, Voldemort's paranoia would set in right away.
Voldemort would feel truly threatened by Snape, and would have to get
rid of him. So, on that, we agree.

But I don't agree that just any DE could kill Harry, and Voldemort
would feel the same level of paranoia and threat. The goons at the top
of the tower don't exactly strike me as 'cream of the crop'. So, I
suspect Voldemort would feel much less threatened.

Though, at the same time, I can see Voldemort either minimizing the
role of the 'other' DE who killed Harry, or sending him on dangerous
assignments until he failed and was killed. So, Voldie certainly
wouldn't want to have any appearing-powerful DE's around. But I really
don't think he would feel all that threatened by them. Eliminating
them would merely be precaution disguised as a priviledge. 

Snape however would be a clear and ever present threat, and certainly
Voldemort would see Snape as someone who truly could parlay the
killing of Harry into getting rid of Voldemort and taking over. And,
that would be independant of whether Snape actually wanted to do that.

The point I am making is that in Voldemort's eyes, there would truly
be a significant difference between Snape killing Harry and a random
goon-DE killing Harry. The end result to the killer might be the same,
but the attitude and level of paranoia would be very different. 

My other point is that, we can justify Snape not killing Harry with a
variety of explanations. However, we can not so easily explain why
Snape prevented other DE's from cursing or killing Harry. If Snape is
truly Voldemort's man, then why would he care at all what happened to
Harry. Some pain, some misery, perhaps even an injury, maybe even
death, why should Snape care; if he is Voldemort's man. He did his job
in killing Dumbledore, everything else is just gravy. If Snape could
report back that Harry was injured or dead, as well as Dumbledore
being killed, I don't see Voldemort complaining much.  

The difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is
relatively small, but none the less distinct. I DO see a difference
between Snape killing Harry, and a random DE killing Harry, with
regards to Voldemort's reaction to the event. I further see a
noticable distinction between Snape not killing Harry and Snape not
allowing other DE's to harm or kill Harry. 

Don't know if I've made it better or worse, but there it is.

Steve/bboyminn