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

dumbledore11214 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 11 03:38:27 UTC 2005


No: HPFGUIDX 141426

> Hickengruendler:
<SNIP>
>> But there's another reason, why I consider Snape to be on the 
good 
> side, which has nothing to do with Snape but all with Dumbledore. 
I 
> have already adressed this earlier, but haven't seen an answer to 
it. 
> (Doesn't mean there wasn't any answer, I haven't read any Snape 
> related post the last months). I simply cannot see Dumbledore 
begging 
> for his life. And I refuse any exception that has him doing this. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Heee, this is of course your right and privilege to refuse any 
exception that makes DD beg for his life, but I do NOT refuse that 
exception, because  the future of WW hangs on whether Harry will be 
able to retrieve all FOUR horcruxes and may I say again - Dumbledore 
himself only managed TWO so far. Are you saying that Dumbledore 
won't abandon his pride for a chance to help Harry to do so? I 
definitely say he may. For both personal and professional so to 
speak reasons. Personal - because he cares about Harry SO much, as 
he admitted at the end of OOP and surely Harry would want DD help 
and professional - because DD can see that Harry is not ready yet to 
do it on his own.

I mean, obviously he would do it now, but considering the fact how 
hard it was for DD to destroy horcruxes, I am not sure he would be 
sure that Harry is ready. I mean, I think DD knows that love would 
help Harry to destroy Voldie himself, but to destroy nasty magical 
objects created by Voldie, you need more than Love , IMO.

So, yeah, DD would not have normaly beg for his life, except in this 
situation, I think he just may.

Besides, pleading may not have been directly involved with pleading 
for his life.

I mean, I like " do not betray me" the most, BUT IF let's say DD 
indeed picked from Snape readiness to kill him ( emotions after all 
could be picked by legilimency) and resigned to his fate ( not asked 
Snape to do so, but just saw  that Snape is the Judas, so to speak), 
he may have been pleading "remember your promise, protect Harry", or 
something like that. Cry of desperation, so to speak. I think it 
would be very Dumbledorish, even knowing that Snape is going to kill 
him to call to something good in his soul, hoping that it is still 
there.



Hickengruendler:
<SNIP>

This 
> is why I'm also not satisfied with OFH!Snape and your otherwise 
> really great theory, that Snape simply thought killing Dumbledore 
> would be the least bad solution (a theory, with which I otherwise 
> very well might have agreed). It does not explain Dumbledore's 
> reaction to me. 

Alla:

I would love to take credit for it, but I think it is just the 
reiteration of one points in Severely Siguine essay, which I adore, 
as I said several times. :-)


> Pippin:
> If he sends a patronus it will be visible to the DE's, which would 
be
> kind of a giveaway, don't you think? What will they think he's 
doing,
> ordering out for pizza? <g> The patronus does not move at the 
speed 
> of light -- <snip> In all this time, the vow is too stupid to 
realize it's been broken?


Alla:

LOL! That was really funny the way you put it, Pippin. Snape, 
ordering out for pizza, I mean. But no, I don't think that it would 
necessarily be a give away to DE because I am not suggesting that 
Snape should cast it on the Tower, but while he is being on the way. 
I think he could have figured out that situation is really bad, no? 
Besides do we know for sure how fast Patronus is? I think it is 
really fast, personally.
But this was just one of the options and I think I may come up with 
some other speculations for Snape having options. :-)


> Pippin:
> "had I not been in on the secret, Narcissa, you would have been
> guilty of great treachery to the Dark Lord." --HBP ch2
> Snape's willingness to take the vow is Bella's and Narcissa's only
> proof that he isn't  stringing them along. Without it, they
> dare not leave him alive. 


Alla:

Thanks for the quote, but I am not sure I can agree with your 
conclusion. I think Bella would be much more happy for Narcissa to 
get out and leave ASAP.


> Pippin:
> Surely Voldemort knows all about bezoars, and wouldn't use a poison
> that could be cured by one? The poison could even have been worse 
than
> death in Dumbledore's eyes -- what if it had unicorn blood in it?


Alla:

Erm... do we know that Voldemort knows about bezoar? Snape is 
supposed to be a Potions genuis, no? But even if Voldemort knows 
about it, I am not convinced that he won't use the poizon that won't 
be cure by it. He is incredibly arrogant after all. Had he not given 
Harry back his wand  and started talking in Graveyard, I may had 
been agreeing with you, but not after I saw Voldemort acting as 
complete idiot. Sorry! :-)



> Pippin:
> This has become conventional wisdom apparently, but it's flat 
wrong.
> Harry saw and heard complete dialogues via legilimency, real time, 
on at 
> least  four occasions:  <SNIPS of the examples which could be read 
UPTHREAD>Dumbledore knew about all that by 
> the end of OOP-- do you think he'd be unable to pull off the same 
trick 
> once he knew it was possible?
<snip>

Alla:

Thanks for the examples. I  think I am with Nora on this one. I 
don't think we have an example of anybody else receiving dialogs in 
their head except Harry, and I am not sure that was Legilimency, but 
more like Harry's special connection with Voldie. So, no I am not 
sure at all that DD would have been able to pull of the same trick, 
unless of course you are saying that DD has special connection with 
Snape via Snape's hidden scar ( just kidding of course :-))


> Carol responds:
> I agree that we don't know the mechanics of the UV, only that if 
you
> break it, you die (the only canon we have). But it wouldn't matter 
in
> that case whether the UV acted or not because the Death Eaters 
would
> have killed him. And in any case, as has been pointed out, he 
couldn't
> have summoned the Order members anyway as the passage up the stairs
> was blocked.

Alla:

And I think that it is debatable whether DE would have killed him or 
at least whethet they would have killed him right away. I also think 
it is unclear whether Patronus definitely HAVE to travel the same 
way human being would. Maybe Patronus can just pass through blocked 
passage,something aking to what hosts do.


> Carol responds:
> I'm a bit confused. The UV can be viewed as mitigating 
circumstances,
> but Snape should be sent to Azkaban for his irrresponsibility in
> taking it? 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Ok, my previous comments could be read UPTHREAD, but I don't think I 
anywhere called UV itself to be mitigating circumstances. I said 
that Snape was an idiot for taking UV, but on the Tower I could see 
mitigating circumstances,maybe. NOT the UV itself, but its 
consequences. As in "he made a wrong choice, but he may not have 
anticipated all that will happen as result of it" Besides, that 
response was just to Pippin hypothetical that Snape primary motive 
in killing DD was caring about Draco. I don't really believe in this 
hypothetical.  I mean caring for Draco could be one of the motives 
of course, but I think Snape wanted to save himself first and 
foremost. I always try to remember that what I believe in could be 
completely and utterly wrong at the end. The fact I may try on other 
scenarious, because it is intellectually enjoyable does not 
necessarily mean that I agree with with other scenarious. :-) It is 
also helping me to prevent myself from future disapointments. For 
example, I always keep in mind that JKR may go the "complete DD!
man scenario" as in DD asking Snape to kill him, but it does not 
mean that I think that it will happen.

So, yes , I think that UV was a bad, really bad choice to make.

Carol: 
> We actually don't know that Snape was being irresponsible (or 
idiotic)
> since don't know how much he knew about Draco's task when he took 
the
> Unbreakable Vow or why he took it. Clearly he did not anticipate 
the
> last provision, at least. <snip> But surely people
> shouldn't go to Azkaban for irresponsible decisions or lapses in
> judgment or "idiocy." If that's the case, then Scrimgeour is 
justified
> in arresting Stan Shunpike. 

Alla:

To me , if Snape was being irresponsible and idiotic , it is 
actually a good thing, because otherwise I view taking UV as  Snape 
in the role of "killer for hire" signing  the contract to murder 
Dumbledore. Snape should go to Azkaban, because choice he made lead 
to his mentor's death by Snape's hand. Keep in mind that I am not 
suggesting Snape to be kissed or anything, but I don't want the 
killing to be unpunished.

And Stan did not kill anybody.



Carol:
<SNIP>
> But I agree with you on the mitigating circumstances. Whatever 
Snape's
> reasons for taking the vow, it clearly restricted his choices on 
the
> tower--making him in some sense his own victim. It certainly did 
not
> operate to his advantage.


Alla:

Do you agree with me considering the fact that I do not consider UV 
to be mitigating circumstances? :-) But I agree with you - UV 
restricted Snape choices on the Tower, absolutely. I am just not 
sure about it is not operating to his advantage, since OFH!Snape can 
turn anything to his advantage.

But even if it did not operate to his advantage, I am convinced of 
one thing - that at the heart of Snape's behaviour on the Tower lied 
desire to save his own skin. Could this assumption be wrong? 
Absolutely, but so far I am convinced of that premise. Now, I can 
see different REASONS for which Snape may have wanted to stay alive 
and one of them may be helping good guys, but I don't see initial 
action of killing DD as selfless act and for THAT I want Snape to be 
punished.

Carol:
> BTW, arguing that he's trapped by his own error in making the vow 
(a
> point I think you actually agree with) is not the same as arguing 
that
> he's a hero on the tower (or rather, that he chose the lesser of 
two
> evils, which is what we're actually arguing).
<SNIP>


Alla:

NO, it is not the same and if he was trapped by his own error( which 
I can see as possibility - as in his intellectual arrogance got  the 
best of him ), he can be salvageable for me, but I am not so sure 
that it was so.

Carol:
<HUGE SNIP>

 (No one is arguing
> that killing Dumbledore was heroic, but it may well have taken a 
rare
> kind of courage not to be found in any character except Snape.)

Alla:

LOL! I have seen many people argue that. Maybe not in this 
thread,but it is 
VERY popular argument, IMO.
I am snipping out the rest of your post, since I only wanted to 
address these points and to sum up, I actually think that some parts 
of your version of Good or conflicted!Snape make sense to me ( as I 
said earlier, 
it does not mean that I think that this is going to happen, but I 
can see it). 

I don't buy Fake Avada Kedavra, but Trapped!Snape, who commits  
real murder does not seem contrived to me.

I realised that in general I can buy any scenario, as long as Snape 
is not being 
a hero for killing DD. That makes no sense to me, unfortunately.


JMO,

Alla.








More information about the HPforGrownups archive