Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG)

[colebiancardi]

No: HPFGUIDX 141408

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"  
 
> Colebiancardi:
> > The one thing that I can glean from her interview, as she doesn't 
> want
> > to give too much away, is that there is someone else who is DD's
> > confidante, his partner.  she states that more will be revealed in
> > book 7, so I am wondering if Snape was that confidante - afterall, 
> we
> > had that argument in the Forest between Snape & DD according to
> > Hagrid.  
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> OK, I am REALLY curious now. You read this interview as if 
> Dumbledore HAS  a confidante? Could you please point to me where she 
> says so? In the quote which had been brought UP (IMO, anyways), she 
> says that Dumbledore's intelligence and wisdon isolated him and he 
> never ever had a confidante. That is one of the strongest reasons 
> why I don't believe in Snape and DD conspiring all year long, 
> because JKR states that he had no confidantes.
> 
It doesn't.  I stated that what I gleaned from it - which translates
into my opinion, not canon.  However to requote the passage:

Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I
would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books
five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from
emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In
fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might
create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his
wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books,
because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his
partner? He has none of those things. He's always the one who gives,
he's always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I
think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very
worthy second in command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly
circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that.
end of Rowling's comment 

me again: 

Some of Rowling's statements, I took to be questions on her part -
such as he(dd) has none on his part.  and the fact she started out
stating "
Well, there is information on that to come, in seven."  and we all
know what THAT means - something, clues that have been given in the
first 6 books, that points to perhaps DD has a confidente.  And her
last statement in the same paragraph - 'You have a slightly circuitous
answer, but I can't get much closer than that.'   She cannot tell us
now, because that would give away too much in book 7 - just like she
cannot address Snape and where his true loyalities lie.  Just like she
cannot tell us what Snape's patronus is - it would give away too much.  

The argument in the Forest between Snape & DD and what we are privy to
tells, to me at least, that there is some partnership between Snape &
DD - that they are probably more equals than one thinks.  Again, if
Snape is just a grunt, why would he question DD's authority?  

Again, I have no canon - just bits & pieces like the rest of you.  It
is just my opinion.  One in which I could be totally wrong on, but we
all love to glean thru Rowling's statements & try to fit them into the
books.  It doesn't bod well for Harry if DD never had a confidente,
IMHO.  Whether it is Snape or not, it a moot point.  However, I can't
think of anyone else in the WW that fits the bill - who has the
backstory - who knows what the heck is really going on.  Snape knows
about horocruxes - after all, he did save DD's life with the ring.  
And as I stated before, Snape & DD are extremely skilled in
Legilimency - I doubt they have too many secrets from each other at
this point & time.

> 
> 
> James Sharman:
> > > For all we know the information about
> > > the poison passed between them in the
> > > first half second and they spent the
> > > rest of the time reminiscing about the
> > > good old days. 
> 
> Eggplant: 
> > Unfair! If you can invent new magic on the fly that Rowling never 
> even
> > hinted at you can justify any plot no matter how ridiculous, but 
> even
> > then you can't make it work artistically.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I completely agree with Eggplant. Snape makes a specific point to 
> say during Occlumency lessons that Legilimency is NOT just a mind 
> reading, something more complicated. You can see memories, emotions, 
> 
> "Snape looked back at him for a moment and then said 
> contemptuously. "Surely even you could have worked that out by now, 
> Potter? The Dark Lord is highly skilled at Legilimency-"
> "What's that?Sir?
> "It is the ability to extract feelings and emotions from another 
> person's mind-" 
> 'He can read minds?" said Harry quickly, his worst fears confirmed.
> "You have no subtlety, Potter" said Snape his dark eyes 
> gliterinng. "You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of 
> the shortcomings that makes you such lamentable potion maker" - OOP, 
> paperback, p.530.
> 
> I don't remember anything in canon pointing out that you can 
> converse telepathically using Legilimency.

Perhaps - BUT even Ron calls in mind-reading. I don't think this is
*new magic* or anything slipped in under the door.  It is taking it a
step further, but it isn't something unexpected, IMHO.  I didn't
expect, nor do I, that with Legilimency you can carry on boring
conversations with one another without speaking, but you can, as Snape
tells us, extract feelings & emotions from someone else's mind - if DD
is projecting that he wants Snape to save Draco & Harry on the tower
and there is only that one opinion available to him, that is not so
farfetched.  Also, TimeTurners could be thought as unfair & a bit of a
cop-out in PoA, as we were not introduced to them until near the end
of the book.  According to Rowling, book 6 is the first half of a
bigger book - book 7 is the second half.  So, it is not *unfair* to
introduce a new concept in the middle of a book, if we are looking at
book 6 & 7 as one book, and not two separate books. 

colebiancardi