Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 157095

Renee wrote:
> > But he [Snape] was wrong about Lupin's motives and his reasons for
going to the Shrieking Shack, he was wrong about Sirius, he was wrong
about James using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper.
> 
> 
> Sydney:
> Actually, James did use Sirius as his SK.  He switched to Peter, but
Sirius was the original one.  See above for Lupin's motives-- he could
still be lying.

Carol responds:
Sorry for the massive snipping, but I don't want to get sidetracked on
P and P--interesting that even a seemingly omniscient narrator who can
get into several character's minds is still unreliable, as I would
hope that any reader would understand immediately from the deliciously
comic-ironic opening line). 

Ahem. To return to the WW: Snape's mistake is entirely understandable.
*Dumbledore* was also wrong about Sirius Black being the SK who
betrayed the Potters, and he was almost certainly the source of
snape's information. (DD was also wrong about Black intending to
murder Harry: after all, as DD says, "Sirius did not behave like an
innocent man," what with sneaking into the castle twice, slashing up
portraits and bed curtains, and seeming to threaten a
thirteen-year-old boy with a twelve-inch knife). So Snape had every
reason to believe, along with the rest of the WW (who had read about
the events at GH in the Daily Prophet) that Black was the Secret
Keeper and that he had escaped from Azkaban to kill Harry. Also,
knowing that Lupin had been Black's friend during their school days
and that someone (who turns out to be Crookshanks) is helping him get
into the castle, even providing him with the password to enter
Gryffindor tower, it's entirely understandable that Snape's suspicions
fall on Lupin--the Dark creature (so classified in the DADA textbook)
helping the murderer on a night when he's about to transform. Of
course, Snape suspects them both.

But do we *know* that Black was the original SK and that there was a
switch-over, or is it possible that Black immediately suggested
Pettigrew and was never the SK himself? The only evidence I can think
of, if it can be called evidence, for Black ever having been SK is
that one week before Godric's Hollow seems very late to put the
Fidelius Charm in place. Having Black as SK for a few months to a year
previously would explain the Potters' survival up to that point, but
if the charm was working, why change SKs?
> 

Renee:
> > Ha! Someone who doesn't dismiss the alchemy theory. But according
to this theory, Lupin/Tonks requires Snape to be married to an old
woman, and I still wonder who that might be. Especially as JKR has
said that information about teachers' mariages is restricted.  
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> See, I wonder if the 'old woman' paired with Snape isn't McGonnegal? 
> They're not married (as far as I know! *eyes them suspiciously*),
but they often appear paired and she seems like one of the few people
Snape is comfortable with.  So it could work symbolically.

Carol responds:
If there's any validity to the alchemical theory, I agree that it will
work symbolically. But on a practical level, I think we can rule out a
marriage of any kind between seventy-something McGonagall and Snape, a
man half her age, especially given her reaction to his killing of
Dumbledore.

To me, the Christmas dinner scene in PoA seems to indicate who is
married and who isn't. Lupin is absent because he's "ill" (his
transformation shouldn't occur on Christmas Day because it's only 55
days after the November 1 transformation, but, oh, well). The only
teachers present are Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Flitwick,
and, belatedly, Trelawney. Binns wouldn't be there, of course, but
where are Sinistra, Hooch, Madam Pomfrey, and all the other teachers
and staff? If any staff members are married, they must be among the
absentees. (Filch and Pince? Oh, no!)

Carol, who hopes that the alchemical elements are kept to a minimum as
they'll pass over the heads of most child readers and many adults