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