Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 141122

 

Julie earlier:
>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 now:
Okay, I see. 

Julie earlier:
>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 now:
Sorry, I goofed up here. I meant Snape told Dumbledore that he'd
*revealed* the prophecy to Voldemort, thus giving Dumbledore the 
opportunity to act and get the Potters into hiding. 


Julie  earlier:
> 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 again:
Again, there is that point I missed. Snape *told* Dumbledore what LV was 
planning to do. If he wanted to get rid of James (and Lily) then why did  he
tell Dumbledore? He effectively saved the Potters from LV (after he'd  put
them in danger), up until Peter betrayed them. This act indicates that  he
did want any of the Potters to die, so why be mad that Harry *didn't*  die? 

Julie earlier:
> <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.


Julie now:
I agree it's not absolute canon. But it fits the characters. There's  nothing
to ever suggest Dumbledore would expel Harry--or any student--for  anything
less than a truly malicious act. And Snape doesn't come off as stupid,  so
I can't believe he doesn't realize that fact about Dumbledore. But as you 
say, that's a matter of opinion. 

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 now:
Agreed. That is a very hotly debated topic. 

Julie earlier:
>  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.
 
Julie again:
Please reread my words. I never questioned the canon here. Canon: We  know
that Harry saw Snape point his wand at Dumbledore, say the AV curse,  and
Dumbledore fly back and fall. Not canon: What Snape and Dumbledore  were
thinking, what conversations they may have had before the Tower  scene,
if they communicated via legilimency during the Tower scene, if Snape was 
performing more than one spell while speaking the AK. 
 
We know what Harry saw, but that doesn't mean it's the full story. We  are
still missing a dozen or more pertinent facts, including what  Dumbledore
meant when he said "Severus, please...", whether Dumbledore could or
could not recover from the cave horcrux curse by the time Snape did
arrive, why Snape went so easy on Harry while Harry was trying to 
crucio him, etc, etc. That's what I mean when I say the scene is 
shrouded in doubt. Whether they end up proving DDM or ESE Snape,
we are certain to learn more facts about this scene in Book 7.
 
Either way those facts won't negate the canon event we saw on the 
Tower, but they will explain what Harry (and we) did see, much  as
new facts explained exactly what Hermoine saw in PS/SS when
Snape was staring with intent concentration at Harry while  Harry's
broom wobbled. It could have been to obvious--Snape  trying to
knock Harry off his broom and kill him. But it wasn't. Just as it
could be the obvious on the Tower--Snape AKed Dumbledore 
to save himself. But it could also be something else.
 
Julie 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]