Snape and Marauders

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 156355

> >Alla
> Suppose we get to view Draco's memories in the Pensieve. Suppose 
he  
> placed his memories about GoF train accident in the Pensieve, 
except 
> he  only put there **part** of that particular memory, starting 
with 
> Gryffindors  hexing him?
> 
> Wouldn't you think of Draco as blameless party if you were to  see 
> **only** that part of the memory?
> Nikkalmati:
>  
> You are speaking as if this were RL or these scenes were chosen 
by  chance.  

Alla:

No, I am saying that the gaps were not filled yet for the reason and 
there are multiple examples of the information withhold ( Snape is 
the primary example IMO) and filled later and IMO she still 
continues doing it.

I am also saying that  IMO there is a **very** clear example that 
tampering with Pensieve memory **is** possible.

Yes, Pensieve is objective, but could Snape change his memory before 
he put it in? I would not put it behind him, especially if the 
speculation that he wanted Harry to see this memory is true, and if 
he did I think he would have done a much better job than dear Horace.

Nikkalmati:
> Jo Rowling is in charge and she shows us what she wants us to  
see.  She shows 
> us, by her own choice, that the attack on Snape was  unprovoked.  
She could 
> easily have given us an indication that it was  retaliation, but, 
in fact, she 
> goes out of her way to show us it was not merited  and that it was 
typical 
> behavior for James and Sirius toward other  students.  That is 
canon and 
> speculation isn't really needed to fill in the  gaps.  She made it 
crystal clear.

Alla:

Eh, okay. She made it crystal clear to you, to me it is very far 
from being clear. May I still speculate on this subject? :)

We do not know till book 4 of Snape being a DE. Dumbledore does not 
let us know who the eavesdropper was in book 5, when he mentions it. 
Why? IMO for dramatic effect and succeeds too.

Although this was the only thing I got right, Snape being the 
eavesdropper.

Was it clear to you that Snape was hit in the Pensieve scene by his 
own **creation** that as it turns out whole school knew? Isn't it a 
very good example of deliberately withholding information personally 
to spring on us later?



Nikkalmati:
 I 
> don't think this scene is the  whole of James and Sirius' 
character and I am 
> willing to grant them good  qualities later, but Jo doesn't leave 
us any excuse 
> for what happens  here. 

Alla:

Excuse, no. Does she leave empty spaces in the story of Marauders 
and Snape? To me, absolutely she does and she already filled some of 
them in HBP and as far as I am concerned they don't make Snape in 
school look good.

Nikkalmati:  
> It is also within her power to show us or to let us hear about bad 
things  
> Snape may have done for the DE's at the time of the first war.  
She has not  
> done that; I assume for a reason. 

Alla:

????

I thought telling Voldemort about Prophecy was pretty bad, but that 
is just me.

Nikkalmati:
  The reporting of the prophecy is disputed on this list  both in 
its 
> extent and its motive, as you know.  DD who had the  best 
knowledge about it 
> seems not to have held it against Snape. 

Alla:

Yes, I know, but I seem to think that canon does not dispute Snape's 
reporting the prophecy and all Snape's deeds are disputed on the 
list, that I know too. :) That does not make them  look any better 
to me, sorry.

Nikkalmati:
<SNIP>
  The burden is 
> on anyone who proposes that things happened that we  are not shown 
in canon 
> to explain why Jo is withholding this information from  us.

Alla:

To make the story more interesting and the revelations even more 
unexpected or expected depending on how you look at it?


Nikkalmati:
 I am not trying to 
> defend a particular character, I am just trying to  discern where 
Jo is 
> leading us.  

Alla:

Aren't we all? :)

JMO,

Alla