Straightforward readings? /Dumbledore's trust in Tom Riddle and Snape

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 140745

> > > Alla:
> > > Yep,  " And you overlook Dumbledore's greatest weakness; He 
has to
> > believe  the best of people. I spun him a tale of deepest 
remorse 
> > when I joined his staff, fresh from my Death Eater days, and he 
> > embraced me with open arms - though, as I say, never allowing me
> > nearer the Dark Arts than he could help" - HBP, p.31.
> > > 
> > > You know, dear Severus is pretty convincing to me , explaining
> away
> > all his good deeds.
> 
> 
> Christina:
> 
> So Snape is convincing when he is saying what you want to hear, but
> spouting rubbish when he's saying what you don't ;)



Alla:

I don't believe that this is what I said, not even close, 
actually. :-)

I was responding to Carol's argument is that the most 
straightforward reading is Snape, who is loyal to Dumbledore.

But we learn about Snape's loyal to Dumbledore either through 
Dumbledore's words, or through Snape's actions which could be 
interpreted both ways, right?

But nowhere in the books did we hear Snape HIMSELF saying that he is 
loyal to  the Light, correct? The most we come to is Snape saying 
that it is his job to find out what Voldemort and DE say in OOP? 
Unless I forgot something in canon, of course

In "Spinner's End" we hear Snape speaking  himself. So, that could 
be of course Snape speaking to the enemy and trying to deceive her 
or it could be Snape finally telling us whom he truly loyal too.
I was just saying that Snape words could carry more weight than 
Dumbledore's second hand account or not. :-)


Spotsgal: 
> Hickengruendler wrote a fantastic post about instances where
> Dumbledore does *not* believe the best in people.  He does not 
rely on
> blind faith, and he does exercise caution when caution is called 
for.
>  In dealing with Snape, a confirmed Death Eater, I would say that
> caution was certainly called for, and I personally believe that
> Dumbledore acted accordingly.  Here is the URL of the post:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138061
> 

Alla:

I really love Hickengruendler's posts and I read that one. I 
disagree with it, because I think that in case of Tom Riddle that is 
EXACTLY what Dumbledore did - relied on blind faith, even if he 
disagrees with it.

I mean, yes, Harry is asking Albus:

"But you didn't really trust him, sir, didn't you? He told me ...  
the Riddle who come out of that diary said, " Dumbledore never 
seemed to like as much as other teachers did."
"Let us say that I did not take it for granted that he was 
trustworthy," said Dumbledore." "I had ,as I have already indicated, 
resolved to keep a close eye on him, and so I did. I cannot pretend 
that I gleaned a great deal from my observations at first.  ...
However, he had the sense never to try and charm me as he charmed so 
many of my colleagues" - HBP, p.361.


So far, so good, right? Dumbledore observes young Riddle at school. 
But let's back track a couple of paragraphs back.


"He seemed polite, quiet, and thirsty for knowledge. Nearly all were 
most favorably impressed by him"
"Didn't you tell them, sir, what he'd been like when you met him at 
the orphanage?" asked Harry - p.361.

Basically, I interpret Harry's question as " Did you DO something 
about your suspicions, Sir?"

What is Dumbledore's answer?

"No, I did not. Though he had shown no hint of remorse, it was 
possible that he felt sorry for how he had behaved before and was 
resolved to turn over a fresh leaf. I chose to give him that 
chance" - p.361.

If this is not a sign of blind faith, I don't know what is. What USE 
is it for anybody else if Dumbledore does not inform anybody  that 
young Riddle already was quite creepy individual at eleven?

Notice, Dumbledore does not even say that Riddle SHOWED remorse for 
how he behaved. Dumbledore says it is POSSIBLE that he showed 
remorse and still he decides to bring him to Hogwarts.

What USE it is for anybody else if Dumbledore was not charmed by 
young Riddle? Everybody else was and they did not know to be wary of 
Tom, because Dumbledore did not tell them.

Hmmm, maybe Slugghorn would have been more careful and would not 
admitted him to his little club. Maybe then  Tom would have never 
learned that Horcruxes creation is  a definite possibility?

Maybe if Dumbledore told Slugghorn to inform his students to be 
careful of Tom, he would have never be able to form his little gang?


I see loads of possible parallels with how Dumbledore dealt with 
Snape, although of course mostly speculative.


Maybe Dumbledore thought that it was POSSIBLE  that Snape showed 
remorse for what he did, but he really did not and Dumbledore still 
chose to give him that chance.

Maybe Dumbledore should have informed at least members of OOP and 
tell Harry about why he trusts Snape?

I think it is possible that Dumbledore either did not exercised 
caution with Snape, or only THOUGHT that he exercised caution as he 
did with Riddle,when he decided to observe both men.


I think it is a huge possibility that in both instances his powers 
of observation sadly failed him.


Just my opinion,

Alla