The Case Against Snape (Combined response -- long))

[inkling108]

No: HPFGUIDX 133312

In keeping with the List Elves' request, I am responding to the 
numerous points people have raised in one post.  (Actually, one post 
is all I have left, since I've already used up two of my alloted 
portion!)  I will have to paraphrase to keep it brief, but will 
include the message numbers of the original posts for those who want 
to look them up.

On to it -- 

On the matter of Snape's participation in the muggle torture at the 
Qudditch world cup, Stephanie (message 133057) points out that the 
levicorpus curse was very popular at one time and that anyone could 
have cast it at the world cup.  Very true.  But within the logic of 
the story this is one of Snape's signature curses, and to have it 
performed at the World Cup by an anonymous DE is exactly the kind of 
clue that JKR plants so that we can later go Aha!  It could 
theoretically be anyone but it makes much more sense for the structure 
of the story if it is Snape.  I realize this would not stand up as 
evidence in a court of law. It just makes sense to me, based on past 
experience with JKR's carefully planted clues.

(By the way, Jemima (133046) it could not have been Barty Crouch Jr. 
because he was trying to get away from Winky at the time.  Besides, he 
hated Death Eaters who went free, remember? He would not be hanging 
out with them.)

Stephanie further points out that Snape might feel obligated to 
participate in DE activities such as the World Cup rampage so as not 
to blow his cover.  Also very true; he might feel obliged to 
participate, but there's no need flip Mrs. Roberts.  That's going 
above and beyond what is required to maintain his cover.  And it fits 
with the kind of gratuitous cruelty he routinely demonstrates toward 
students at Hogwarts.  Another indication that the flipping DE is 
Snape.

Gregal (133073) says: "The only reason Snape wouldn't tell Dumbledore 
that Pettigrew was the spy and Sirius wasn't is because he's still a 
loyal DE."  Of course that's assuming Snape knew about Pettigrew 
spying on the Potters, but he seems to be pretty close to LV and it 
makes sense that he would know, especially since he was the one who 
conveyed the prophecy to LV that started the whole chain of events.  
So, yes, one more strike against him.

About casting the AK curse -- needing to mean it --and the role of 
hatred.  The responses really made me think hard about this.
 
Jemima argued that Snape could have used his hatred of LV to fuel the 
curse against DD -- any hatred will do.  But I can't see how you could 
use hatred for one person to fuel a curse against another for whom you 
felt no hatred, or even felt love.  I don't see how the emotions could 
transfer like that.

But it does raise the question of what kind of hatred is required to 
successfully cast an AK curse.  Because I do think you need to hate 
someone to kill them like this.  The question is, how personal does 
the hatred have to be?

Salit (133176) points out that Pettigrew killed Cedric and LV killed 
Frank Bryce without even knowing them.  True enough.  But there is a 
kind of generic hatred and contempt for others -- especially the weak 
and vulnerable -- that is is part and parcel of being a Death Eater.  
Snape demonstrates this contempt in his treatment of Neville and other 
vulnerable students.  It's beyond just an emotion, it's a mode of 
being. On reflection, I've concluded this mode must be the key to the 
Unforgivables, and this is why non Death Eaters cannot cast these 
curses. 

Stephanie, I think you are onto something when you say that Snape's 
hatred and revulsion may be self directed.  I think self-loathing may 
be at the root of why Snape killed Dumbledore, the only person who 
offered him forgiveness and unconditional love.  If you really hate 
yourself, being loved is unbearable, and the natural impulse is to 
strike at the one who loves you.  If Snape has been forcing himself to 
contain this impulse for years, no wonder it explodes with such force 
when he finally has the chance to express it.

A number of people in various threads have argued that Dumbledore in 
death did not resemble a typical untouched AK victim.  But we really 
don't know what someone should look like after they have swallowed an 
ocean of toxic potion, been AK-d and then fallen from a high tower.  
Not too good, I reckon.  It reminds me of the Celtic legend of the 
threefold death.

I just reread the final confrontation between Harry and Snape as Snape 
is fleeing Hogwarts.  This is not man who feels a shred of regret or 
remorse.  This is a man exulting in triumph, a man who is finally free 
to be himself -- a monster.  A complete and unredeemable monster?  
Well, that's the one question about Snape that still remains, at least 
in my mind.  All the other questions have been answered.

As some have pointed out already, if you read between the lines of 
JKR's interview with Mugglenet, especially her comments on Dumbledore, 
it really does sound like DD was fatally wrong about Snape.  If you 
haven't read it yet, you can find it here:

http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview.shtml

It's been a long day and I'm sure I haven't covered everything but I 
better wrap this up before my head hits the keyboard :-) If you've 
read this far, thanks for sticking it out with this very long post.

Inkling