[HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape

[Tammy Rizzo]

No: HPFGUIDX 148876

> Tammy:
>Ahh, but DD wasn't leaving Harry in the presence of a child loving werewolf
>and several other DEs.  He was leaving Harry in the hands of Snape, whom he
>trusted completely, whether he was right or wrong to trust him so.   <snip>

 
PJ:
With each and every explanation Dumbledore just seems to get more and more 
stupid.  He trusted Snape, he *forgot* that Harry hasn't backed down from a 
fight since he was 11, he *forgot* that Harry and Snape hate and distrust 
each other and he *forgot* what Harry went through when Sirius died and how 
reckless and angry that made him...
 
Tammy again:
 
Sorry to have taken so long, but my weekend was quite busy.  Okay, so you
think that DD putting so much hope and trust in Harry and Snape being able
to act like grown ups is moronic.  Why?  It was wrong, obviously, but how
can it be considered moronic?  Think for a moment -- Dumbledore is well over
150 years old.  He's always been shown to us as 'large and in charge', so to
speak -- always quite secure, almost always nearly preternaturally calm (a
major exception is when Harry's name came out of the Goblet), always
rational.  He's had GENERATIONS of practice at being cool, calm, collected,
rational, and of considering the outcomes.  I don't know about you, but
after I have practiced a particular state of mind for a few weeks, it kinda
becomes a set habit.  I can only imagine that, after well over a century of
practicing a cool, calm, considerate (not as in 'kindly' but as in 'pros and
cons') state of mind, I might very well have completely forgotten that there
were any OTHER way to be.  *Of course* he would hope and expect and trust
that Harry and Snape would be able to rise above their less mature, more
emotional behavior, given time.  He probably thought that they'd had plenty
of time to learn to be more rational.  Harry had behaved quite rational on
the cave expedition, after all.  Besides all that, I seem to remember in
some after-HBP interview that JKR said something about DD being 'out of
touch' about emotions.  (Am I mis-remembering?  I've never had much luck
searching the sites.)
 
PJ:
Maybe the twists and turns made to show how DD wasn't hoodwinked by Snape 
and done in at the end by someone he mistakenly trusted  don't seem out of 
character to you but to me it makes it sound as though somewhere between 
book 5 and 6 Dumbledore has had a lobodomy!

Tammy  again : 
 
Twists and turns?  What twists and turns?  It all reads perfectly
straightforward to me.  I don't understand what you mean, here. 

>Tammy:
>I am firmly convinced that DD never PLANNED to die there on the Tower.
>That's just how things turned out, given the situation at the time.

PJ:
Well finally!!  From there it's just a short hop to either ESE or OFH!Snape.

  C'mon, you can do it!  lol 
 
Tammy again:
 
Oh, no, I'm quite firmly convinced of DDM!Snape.  In fact, the Tower scene
and aftermath merely cemented my convictions that Snape is completely loyal
to Dumbledore personally, and to the fight against Voldemort in general.
Why does my conviction that DD did not plan the Tower fiasco automatically
lead to an ESE/OFH!Snape reading?  That makes no sense whatsoever.


> Tammy:
> DD probably was not aware when he made the offer of hiding Draco and 
>Narcissa
>that there were several DEs running through his school, coming to make sure
>he died.   <snip> . . .  it   was a reasonable mistake to make.

PJ:
A reasonable mistake?  So we're back to moronic Dumbledore?    <snip>
 
Tammy again:
 
No, we're still with cool, calm, collected, rational, reasonable,
not-in-touch-with-emotions DD, who has been that way for so very long he's
probably forgotten completely what it's like to be driven by feelings.  His
own feelings towards Harry frighten him, I believe -- they're so much
stronger than he's had to deal with in over a century (my guess).  He's out
of practice with emotional responses, and doesn't understand them anymore,
except possibly as an intellectual exercise.
 
> Tammy:
<snip> ... he would have done anything to protect
>his students, regardless of the price one teacher must be called upon to
>pay.

PJ:
But Dumbledore's death *didn't* make the students any safer!  Not that night

and not for the future!  Two reasons more didn't get hurt or die in that 
fight was Harry's potion and the fact that most DE's seem to be the "gang 
who couldn't shoot straight".   Let's face it, either the kids are 
extrordinarily good at spells or the DE's skills are laughable!  That's 
twice a bunch of underaged Wizards have kicked big, bad Death Eater butt!!

Tammy  again : 
 
Well, have we yet seen any *competent* DE action?  What we've seen, first
hand, has been more like disorganized mob work, and a bunch of toadies
grovelling in the graveyard.  Let us not forget, too, that almost all of
these DEs were trained in a Hogwarts that had the DADA curse in place, which
means very likely they were trained by incompetent DADA professors who were
never able to finish a year.  I'm sure they were confident that anyone
fighting against them would also have been trained by incompetents.
Unfortunately for them, Harry is anything but incompetent in applied DADA,
and was able to instruct the DA in flexibility and spontenaity when fighting
Dark Arts.  At least, that's how I read it.  And the FF potion certainly
boosted the kids' luck, of course!  And also, Snape was trying to hurry the
DEs out of Hogwarts, and since he had just killed their main enemy,
Dumbledore, of *COURSE* they would follow his orders at the moment -- how
could he NOT be faithful to LV if he'd just killed DD, right?  At least, in
their minds.  After all, they seem to all have rather weak minds, believing
the tripe LV's been feeding them. 
 
***
Tammy Rizzo
ms-tamany at rcn.com 


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