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

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 140687

 
Jen wrote:
> 
> 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.

 
Julie:
Really, we don't need to assume those facts. In fact, it might  make
more sense not to assume them. The most pertinent question  right
now is "Why did JKR tell us that a wizard can  change a patronus?" 
This factoid certainly had no real relevance in HBP, other than being
part of the evidence that Tonks was pining for Lupin (and not at all
necessary, since the other evidence sufficed, if one bought Tonks
wilting away over this unrequited love). And when JKR tosses  these
irrelevant factoids into the mix, she often does so because they will
have relevance to the plot in later books.
 
And what would have more relevance in Book 7 than finding out that
Snape changed his patronus? Especially if the Order is unaware of
the change. Imagine a previously unseen patronus delivering messages
to the Order, a patronus that appears to be connected to Dumbledore
and the Order--a phoenix, for instance. Would the Order take the 
information imparted by the patronus seriously? I think they would,
especially *if* they couldn't identify the caster of the patronus.  They
might assume the caster was someone working on Dumbledore's
behalf, especially if the information proved helpful. But they would
never think that person could be Snape, the man they believe  killed
Dumbledore!
 
 
Lupinlore:
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.
 
Julie says:
I do think it's plausible JKR would be referring to HBP when she  says
she can't reveal Snape's patronus. After all, we haven't seen  Snape's
patronus, so why would she necessarily be referring to a patronus  we
never see in the books? Since we will see only see Snape's  patronus
in Book 7 (as it's the only one left), it seems logical that she refer  to
the one that will actually *be* in the books. Works for me, anyway.
 
Julie 
(who postulates that Snape's patronus may see more action in Book
7 than Snape will, and that his patronus may be the crucial evidence
that proves his true allegiance)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]