CHAPDISC: HBP8, Snape Victorious

Mon Jan 16 17:58:36 UTC 2006

No: HPFGUIDX 146549

> 
> 5.  I just noticed this when working on this chapter and actually reading it
> in braille instead of hearing audio where I can't tell how a sentence is
> punctuated.  Snape tells Tonks that Harry is 
> 
> "quite--ah--safe in my hands."  
> 
> Is there any implication in his words here, or is it just done for emphasis,
> to add some sharpness, for Harry's benefit?  Or for Tonks?  Just curious
> about how this was written.  Any thoughts?
> 

Pippin:
There's another time when Snape hesitates to say that he's concerned for
Harry's safety. In GoF, after saying that Harry has an unfortunate habit
of wandering around after hours, he continues "he should be stopped.
For--for his own safety." 

OTOH, when Snape is furious at Harry for being in Hogsmeade, he has
no hesitation about railing at him for risking his life. 
"Everyone from the Minister of Magic downward has been trying to
keep famous Harry Potter safe from Sirius Black" etc. 

I think Snape is  concerned to hide from Harry that he wants 
Harry to be safe, though he slips up once in a while when he's really
angry. It's Snape's job, IMO, to teach Harry how Dark
Wizards think, so he doesn't want Harry to think that he, Snape,
has any real concern for him. (I'm pretty sure that Snape knew
exactly where Harry was in the Egg and the Eye chapter. He has
to know where the trick steps are just like everybody else.)

> 6.  Later in HBP, we learn that Tonks' patronus is now a wolf, and we're led
> to suspect it has changed because of her love for Remus.  But here at this
> point, we don't know any of that yet.  Why do you think Snape made these
> comments about her patronus?  He hasn't seemed to have any particular
> feelings one way or the other about Tonks previously; in fact, did we ever
> see them interact before?  Why does he say that her patronus is weak?  What
> do you think about the whole significance of the changing patronus?  Does it
> foreshadow events yet to come, or are there implications about Lupin in
> Snape's comments?  

Pippin:
I'm sure that Snape was just as suspicious about Tonks's changed appearance
and her altered patronus as we were. I think he was fishing for information.
The 'weak' comment is the first indication that Snape may still have some
doubts about Lupin.

> 8.  Ok, I've been dying to ask this question for months.  It's come up once
> or twice before with no response.  Did Snape see that Harry's face was
> covered in blood?  He did have a lantern with him, and when they entered the
> school there was a lot of light.  If he did see it, why didn't he comment or
> why didn't he realize that Harry had not been late on purpose, that
> something must have happened to Harry on the way?  If you believe he didn't
> see it, why not, how could he not see it?  With all the extra security and
> all that going on in the wizarding world, why didn't he ask Harry how his
> face got bloodied?  Were his snarky comments to Harry on the walk up to the
> castle just the usual routine, done to keep up appearances, or does he still
> seriously hate him so much?
> 

Pippin:
I'm sure Draco couldn't wait to tell his buds what he'd done to famous
Harry Potter, and Snape had already heardl about it by the time he met Harry
at the gate. But I wonder if anyone else believed Draco at first. Leaving
blood on Harry's face for all to see would certainly lend credibility to 
Draco's story, and Snape would certainly think Harry deserved some
embarrassment, to say the least, for having been so foolish 

We know now that Snape is an expert on healing spells, and that magic
leaves its trace, so Snape might be able to tell that Harry had been healed 
already, even if Tonks didn't  mention it in her patronus message.

It's interesting that Tonks had the power to heal Harry and conjure
a patronus, but didn't think to wipe up the blood. It might be a symptom
of her depression, but it could also be that since she's never got the
hang of cleaning spells, she didn't trust herself to do it.

It also could be a clue. Harry's blood dries in a few minutes,
yet the trickle of blood on Dumbledore's face was fresh enough to wipe
away long after he was supposed to have died.

> 9.  Hermione tells Harry that Hagrid was only a few minutes late, yet Snape
> had said that Tonks' message to Hagrid couldn't reach him, because Hagrid
> was late, and that was why, he, Snape, had taken the message instead.  Was
> this true?  Do you think Snape intercepted the patronus message before it
> could reach its intended recipient?  How long do Patronuses take to arrive
> with a message?  Did it arrive when Hagrid was not there? Did Snape
> intercept the message because he was supposed to protect Harry, or just to
> have another golden opportunity to give him a bad time?

Pippin:
It's probably important to Book Seven's plot that a patronus can be intercepted.
Also, that Hagrid was only a few minutes late arriving at the feast does not
tell us when Hagrid was expected or how soon before the feast the patronus 
arrived. But if Snape heard what happened from Draco, he may have been on
his way to investigate already.

Pippin