[HPforGrownups] RE: Re: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons

[P J]

No: HPFGUIDX 141087

Julie says:
>You can interpret it that way if you like. But canon (if we  take 
>Dumbledore's word) also says that Snape didn't know who the prophecy 
> referred to, thus he was never *planning* to rid himself of his 
> nemesis.

PJ replies:
Sorry, by "he" I was referring to LV, not Snape.  I should've been much clearer with that.


Julie:
>Canon also states that Snape told Dumbledore of the prophecy before 
> GH, which gave Dumbledore the opportunity to put the Potters into 
> hiding <snip>

PJ replies:
Why would Snape have to tell Dumbledore about the prophesy since it was Dumbledore rather than Snape (supposedly) who'd heard the entire thing already?


Julie:
> Again, you can go with your idea that Snape was angry Harry didn't  
> die with James and Lily, but that takes a lot more twisting of 
> canon than the straightforward reading that Snape tried to save the 
> Potters.

PJ replies:
I said it *could* be read that way - and it easily can.  Snape heard part (?) of the prophesy, gave it to LV, LV uses it and becomes Vapormort thus (if ESE) leaving Snape without his real "master", (if OFH!) taking one choice away from Snape and possibly being blamed by the other DEs for giving LV something that would destroy him.

It's a more adult reason than simply saying Snape hated Harry because Harry reminded Snape of James, isn't it?   Personally I don't believe Snape is an adult so I still believe the reason he hates Harry is James but it doesn't require twisting canon to support the "mad at Harry for not dying" theory either.

Julie:
> <snip> In any case, I think this is a pretty weak argument for 
> Snape trying to give Voldemort an "automatic win," given that it 
> had as much chance of working (which Snape well knew) as I have of 
> learning to fly a broom.

PJ replies:
I'm talking canon and you're discussing what Snape felt, what he knew... Sorry but we *don't* know any of that!  All we know for a fact is what is canon, the rest is suppostiion.  I see the guesswork as the weaker arguement.


PJ earlier:
> 3) Add to that the fact that in canon Snape takes the UV and 
> follows through by performing the AK on Dumbledore.  Not canon but 
> still suspicious to me is the question of whether Snape made sure 
> Harry would not learn Occlumency even though he knew the reason 
> behind that need.

Julie:
> Sorry, but this again isn't much of an argument. We have no proof  
> Snape *made sure* Harry would not learn Occlumency. Not even much 
> evidence in support. <snip>

PJ replies:
That is why I said I had no canon for it, just my suspicions.... We seem to have read that part quite differently.


Julie:
> The Tower scene and Snape's AK remain shrouded in doubt. Yes, we
> know what Harry *saw*, and what we saw through him, but we have no
> idea what Dumbledore or Snape were thinking, what conversations they
> may have had before the Tower scene that might be relevant, or if 
> they communicated by Legilimency right before Snape's AK. We can't 
> even be sure if it was an AK, or if there was more than one spell 
> at work. <snip>


PJ replies:
Ok, so canon works when it's pro Snape but it's questionable when it's not?  Then it's pretty useless as a discussion tool.

We're told Snape performed the AK on Dumbledore after taking the UV to finish Draco's work if he couldn't.  It's fairly straightforward...  And yes, new canon in book 7 *could* negate the canon in books 1-6 but for now, that's all we've got to work with.

PJ