ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition)

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 162682

> Sydney:
> I know it's not airtight, but then neither is Dumbledore's 
explanation
> for why he didn't try stopping Draco to be honest.  I think it's 
more
> important to JKR though that she puts the characters through the 
mill,
> than that all other logical possiblities are exhausted

zgirnius:
Fair enough.
> Sydney:
> First of all, I don't think Legilimency is a clear enough
> communications medium to get that much information across.  It goes 
in
> images, it's not like (AFAWK) hearing voices in your head. 

zgirnius:
Yes. All it takes is one image: Snape gazes at Dumbledore, and sees 
hiself AK Dumbledore. Perhaps with Harry covered by a misty cloak 
standing on the Tower.

Sydney:
> Plus, Dumbledore goes directly into the pleading.  Pleading just 
seems
> like a really unusual tone for him, and I think he would only use it
> if he was actually mostly sure that Snape would *not* do what he was
> asking him to do. 

zgirnius:
Right. If they never discussed it, what would Dumbledore expect Snape 
to do when he showed up on the Tower? A definite option would be, 
seize the element of surprise and attack the Death Eaters 
there...which Dumbledore, having had all kinds of time to think about 
his predicament, knows would be a disaster.

Sydney:
> The whole scene makes so much more sense in terms of how quick and 
how
> established and how transitionless both characters reactions are,

zgirnius:
Dumbledore's reactions are transitionless, not Snape's. We do not 
have a description of his expression before the 'hatred and 
revulsion', but I take that to mean it was neutral. Otherwise, 
Dumbeldore's immediate reaction could be because he has just 
understood himself to be betrayed based on Snape's expression.

Sydney:
> this is a continuation of something they have both already discussed
> before, and disagreed on before.  And we have a disagreement, a 
heated
> disagreement already in the book, over something Snape 'promised' to
> do that Dumbledore says he should do and Snape says he doesn't want
> to.  

zgirnius:
Obviously, I need an explanation for this. I think the thing Snape 
agreed to is letting Dumbledore handle Draco his way. And I think he 
is pushing for a more aggressive approach. If someone kidnapped Draco 
and Cissy and hid them away, that would be a violation of their human 
rights, but it would also save their necks.

In the meantime, it is Snape's job to prevent a disaster liek the 
closely averted one with Katie Bell. That he can, might be what 
Du,mbeldore is taking for granted. (Has Snape figured out why Draco 
disappears for hours at a time? If not, it must be making him 
nervous...Harry has been thinking about this for weeks at thetime of 
the argument.) And of course investigations in Slytherin House fit 
right it to this conversation.

> Sydney:
>  And I don't see how a Pensive memory lets
> Snape off the hook in terms of juicy character torture, unless it's 
in
> terms of maybe opening a possibility of him surving past the end of
> the book.  Snape's hook isn't that he can't prance about in sunny
> confidence that he'll be exhonorated, any more than Sirius' was 
really
> that he hadn't cleared his name.  It's that he killed him mentor and
> has to go make nice with Voldemort and crawl around in a pit of
> despair.  I think that's enough to be going on with!  

zgirnius:
Oh, but he needs to convince Harry too. Not just to be exonerated, 
but for his sacrifice to actually make a difference. Being without 
the means to 'prove' anything could certainly make things worse.

I mean, killing Dumbledore for the cause, because one swore to a Vow, 
there was no better way,  etc. is awful. But if it ends up not 
helping the cause because noone will take Snape's help? That's gotta 
be worse.

Also, dropping Snape for a minute...it makes it harder for Harry too. 
He'd actually have to trust Snape (as opposed to verifying the facts 
of his story).