Snape's patronus in Book 7 (Re: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks .....)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 140664

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> 
> Jen: Things are different now, though. For one thing, we don't 
know 
> if someone who murders can cast a patronus. Snape could contact 
the 
> Order with his patronus and it will be a clue that an outright 
> murder, generated by hatred or enjoyment of killing, did not 
happen 
> on the tower.

Well that's an interesting question.  If murder tears the soul and 
it takes a full soul to make a patronus, this might make sense.  But 
that assumes facts not in evidence, and if it is true would lead to 
all sorts of logical problems and plot holes.  Indeed, if producing 
a patronus requires mostly just "positive" emotion and one gets 
great enjoyment and satisfaction out of killing, then I can see 
killers being capable of producing very powerful patronuses.  

Snape was a DE for years and still capable of producing a Patronus.  
If he could still produce one after betraying Harry's parents and 
doing dark and evil things for Voldemort (and I really don't see him 
just sitting in his little hole making pretty potions for Daddy 
Riddle), I don't see why anyone would be surprised that he is still 
able to make one after one more betrayal and murder.  After all, an 
out-and-out nutcase like Bellatrix can still perform Occlumency -- 
another branch of magic deeply dependent on emotion and control 
thereof.  Granted, the magic of Occlumency and of the Patronus 
engage emotion in a different way, but both involve 
repression/blocking/overcoming of negative feelings in order to 
protect yourself.  Engaging in dark and evil deeds doesn't appear to 
have much effect of emotion-based magic in the Potterverse.

Patronuses are supposedly resistant to dark magic.  But is a 
patronus produced by a joyful memory of killing dark magic or light 
magic?  The joy and satisfaction are there, after all.  We don't 
know enough about dark magic to answer.  And frankly, I don't think 
JKR has things that worked out.

So, at the moment, I stand by my contention that unless we are told 
major new information - some of which would raise plot holes and 
contradiction such as why his career as a DE doesn't render 
Snape "apatronic" - there is nothing about Snape's patronus that 
will help.


> 
> Another possibility, we just found out a patronus can change. How 
> convenient! Order members would be quite surprised if Snape's 
> patronus has changed form and reflects his loyalty to Dumbledore.
> 

Yes, but how would they know it's Snape's patronus if it's changed?  
Is there a way of identifying patronuses even when they are 
changed?  Had Snape seen Tonks's wolf-patronus before and just not 
commented on it, or did he have some way of knowing who had sent it 
even if it had changed?  Once again, that assumes all sorts of facts 
about patronuses that aren't in evidence.

Also, when asked about Snape's patronus before HBP JKR said she 
wouldn't reveal it because it would give too much away.  That 
implies something about Snape's patronus BEFORE the events on the 
tower -- unless you are wanting to postulate that JKR is being 
slipshod with language and forgetting that although it might 
be "after HBP time" for her it is still "before HBP time" for her 
listeners.  That's possible, but doesn't strike me as likely in this 
case.  It is much more plausible that JKR meant exactly what she 
said, that Snape's patronus AS OF THE TIME OF THE QUESTION, i.e. pre-
HBP, would give too much away.  But whatever that "too much" is, it 
can't be anything that would point strongly to Snape's innocence, as 
Lupin, McGonnagall, et. al. are familiar with the patronus from 
Order business and don't bring it up as strong evidence against 
Snape's guilt.

We can also postulate, as Pippin does, that McGonagall and Lupin do 
believe the patronus is evidence against what Harry has said but 
hesitate to bring that up because they feel sorry for Harry, etc.  I 
don't find that very plausible, either.  For one thing, it seems 
like they are saying "Well, Snape is innocent but we'll let Harry 
(and Harry's friends) vendetta against him even though Harry has an 
uncomfortably strong record of defeating opponents who ought to wipe 
the floor with him.  After all, if Harry manages to kill Snape in 
the process, it isn't like we liked him much anyway."  It makes them 
more Machiavellian, and frankly more intelligent and competent, than 
we have any evidence for them being.  Even if they were 
tempermentally inclined to such action, Hagrid is too loose-mouthed, 
Lupin too passive and reactive, and McGonagall too much of a 
psychological ignoramus to ever pull it off.


Lupinlore