Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape.

[colebiancardi]

No: HPFGUIDX 141352

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at h...>
wrote:
>
> "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> wrote:
>  
> > Really?  Evil? 
> 
> Yes really evil.

well, we will have to agree to disagree.  I think Snape is not a nice
man, to put it mildly, but I don't think he is *evil*.

> 
> > If anything, I think he lacked some foresight 
> > I don't believe he saw the third part of 
> > the vow coming.
> 
> Well, I certainly hope JKR doesn't take Snape in that direction. My
> Snape, the evil but brilliant criminal mastermind who fooled the two
> greatest wizards of the age for 16 years at least earns my respect.
> Your Snape, the brain dead dumb comically inept secret agent just
> earns my contempt; I keep thinking of Inspector Clouseau and Maxwell
> Smart. 

well, that is your opinion & you are entitled to it.  However, by
making Snape human and a man who does make mistakes, does not equate
Snape to being brain-dead.  Otherwise, is DD brain-dead, cause he made
mistakes?  If anything, it shows a soul who is conflicted and torn
between what is right and wrong, what is the easy way and what is the
hard way.  If Snape is what you have depicted, I think of Ming from
Flash-Gordon or some other inept villian who makes long speeches and
then falls to his demise(The Evil Overlord theory).  I think Snape is
a bit more complex than that.  I also think he is much smarter than
wanting to take over the wizarding world or being just out for
himself.  He will gain nothing by either choices, so that just leaves
him in Voldy's camp - where he gains nothing either.  In DD's world,
he gained some peace for himself - even if it was to continue to hate
James.

> 
> > However, it may have been what DD ordered
> > Snape to do - to win & cement the Malfoy's
> > trust in Snape.  The UV did that. 
> 
> The only people who do things like that are characters in very bad
> fantasy novels, nobody else. Can you imagine book 7 with that premise
> as the foundation? I can't.

Well, Rowling has done this by introducing the UV in book 6.  So, you
are basically stating that theme is bad & cheesy, yet SHE put it in. 
She made it that way.  DD knows about the Vow - if he thought Snape
was using it against him, I am sure DD would have no problems taking
Snape out.  Instead, DD gave Snape the DADA job - knowing full well
Snape would leave Hogwarts at the end of the term.   

> 
> > We don't know the whole story up in
> > the tower yet. 
> 
> We never know the whole story about anything but I don't know of any
> great mystery that went on in that tower on that night that needs
> explaining, the events were tragic but clear.
> 
Tragic yes.  Clear, no.  We don't know - we only know Harry's POV.  We
don't know Snape's POV or what transpired between the two up in the
tower.  It is even more tragic if one believes that Snape killed DD to
save Draco, Harry and the rest of the school.  It is even more tragic
if one believes that Snape did what he was ordered to do by
Dumbledore.  I think Rowling makes a point of this, when Dumbledore
tells Harry that Harry must do everything he orders him to do.  He
makes Harry promise.  Is it so farfetched to believe that DD ordered
Snape in the same manner?


> > If there had been no vow, and Snape 
> > killed Dumbledore, then I would be 
> > more in your camp.  
> 
> The vow in no way excuses Snape's treachery, not one bit! Nobody put a
> gun to his head, he agreed to make it. 
> 
You missed the point I was trying to make.  Without the vow and if
Snape killed DD, then I would be more inclined to believe Snape to be
truly evil.  With the Vow, there is a question on whether he is evil
or not.  And true, no one put a gun to Snape's head - he turned back
on his own, with no one forcing him to do so, to fight alongside DD to
defeat Voldemort.  Snape probably agreed to do anything DD asked him
to do - that is probably why they fought in the forest - Snape did not
like what was being asked of him.


> > How do we know that Snape never told
> > DD about Quirrell? 
> 
> I would think trying to murder a student would be grounds for
> dismissal, or a least a pay cut, but Dumbledore did nothing except
> leave Harry and Quirrell alone in the castle while he went off to
> London. And in 6 books Dumbledore never once talks about the time
> Quirrell tried to kill Harry at a Quidditch game. I don't think Snape
> could have told him. 

Someone(sorry, forgot who) already brought this up and made the point,
using cannon, that DD DID know about Quirrell thru Snape.  Read up a
few threads.  So, Snape did talk about it to DD.


> 
> > Sirius knew better as well, but he went anyway.  
> 
> Sirius was in no more danger than any other member of the Order when
> they went to the Ministry, in fact most of them were injured it's just
> that Sirius was the one injured the most and died.
> 

And in War, people do die.  It is a fact.  I think the point I was
trying to make, is that regardless if DD told Harry about the Prophecy
or not, somewhere, at sometime, Sirius would act rashly and reckless -
and would have died.  JMO, of course, but Sirius wasn't really playing
with a full deck - I love his character, don't get me wrong - but he
was very flawed as well.  

colebiancardi