Was the eavesdropper unimportant to Harry? WAS: Re: Snape again

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 147031

SSSusan:
> <snip>  Much seems to be being made of Harry's not pursuing
information on the eavesdropper when he first learned of his
existence... but to me it makes sense that he *didn't* pursue it.  DD
did not identify the person by name, and I've always assumed that
Harry assumed that this meant it *wasn't anyone he knew*.  Perhaps not
very smart of Harry to make that assumption, but doesn't it make sense
that he did?  He probably figured if the eavesdropper was someone he
knew or someone "important to the story," that DD would TELL him the
name.  He didn't, so Harry didn't ask.

Carol responds:
Exactly. The eavesdropper was "not important to the story." Not
significantly guilty, not a criminal on the level of the betrayer
(PP), not guilty of the murders of the Potters. Only an informer doing
his job for LV. If Harry had thought he was important, he would have
demanded to know his identity. Instead, he realizes that it's LV and
his interpretation of the information that's important, and he forgets
about the eavesdropper for a whole year.
> 
SSS:
> Thus, I think Jen is right that if Harry had discovered the
eavesdropper was *anyone* he actually knew, he'd have been surprised.
 Then to find out that it wasn't only someone he actually knew, but
that it was SNAPE must have left Harry simply bouleverse!!

Carol responds:
Yes, of course. He'd have been *surprised* if it was anyone he knew.
But it's only when Harry knows it's *Snape* that the eavesdropper role
becomes *significant* to him.

My point is that, to Harry, the unknown eavesdropper was *not* a
criminal equal in importance to Voldemort himself or to his parents'
betrayer, or Harry would have demanded to know his identity (which DD
obviously knew). He (the eavesdropper) was only the source of
information that *LV* interpreted to (the as yet unborn) Harry's
disadvantage. As DD says later, after Harry knows that Snape was the
eavesdropper, he (the eavesdropper) had no way of knowing who the
unborn child would be. The eavesdropper also had no way of knowing (as
*Harry* implies in OoP) that LV would attempt to kill an infant rather
than waiting to see which boy born at the end of July turned out to be
a threat. He was just a DE passing on information to his boss about a
potential threat.

So, unlike the betrayer (PP), a friend of the Potters directly
instrumental in bringing about their deaths and therefore someone
Harry would naturally hate, the eavesdropper was unimportant--just
some unknown DE who happened to provide LV with information. He
(Harry) placed the blame for the *interpretation and use* of that
information where it belonged, and for the resulting murders, squarely
on the shoulders of LV. 

If the eavesdropper had been Lucius Malfoy, Harry's reaction would
have been, "I knew it! He's evil!" And then he would have let it go
because it did nothing to change his mental picture fo Draco's father.
If it had been Mundungus Fletcher, he would have said, "That scumbag!
Dumbledore should never have let him into the Order!" But it would not
have been personal. Harry would not have gone ballistic and accused
Dung of *murdering* his parents. He would have remembered that it was
*Voldemort* who killed them and PP who betrayed them. The anger would
have been temporary, as it was when he discovered Dung with goods
stolen from 12 GP, and the eavesdropper role would have retained its
relative insignificance. 

It's only Snape, whom Harry is determined to hate, for whom the
eavesdropper role is given exaggerated significance, greater than that
of the betrayer Pettigrew, who now seems to be forgotten, despite the
fact that he restored Voldemort's body and killed Cedric Diggory. We
don't hear Harry saying, "If I meet Wormtail, so much the worse for
him!" And yet, setting aside the death of Dumbledore (which has yet to
be fully explained), Wormtail's sins against Harry are much greater
than Snape's. 

IOW, the eavesdropper role really is *not* important except as the
means by which LV first heard a portion of the Prophecy and *chose* to
try to prevent its fulfillment, instead beginning the process of
fulfillment (and creating his own nemesis by giving Harry powers he
would not otherwise have had). The betrayer role, in contrast, *is*
important. Peter Pettigrew made possible the murder of the Potters by
revealing their whereabouts. That he was their trusted friend makes
his crime all the worse. And yet it's the *eavesdropper* (who,
according to DD, regrets his role and tried to prevent the Potters'
deaths) whom Harry regards as their murderer (*before* the death of DD
seems to confirm his suspicions of Snape).

Why? *Not* because the role of eavesdropper is important in itself.
Clearly it isn't, or Harry would not have forgotten about it until
Trelawney revealed the eavesdropper's identity (though what actually
happened remains unclear and the accounts are contradictory). The
eavesdropper only *becomes* important to Harry when Harry learns that
he's Snape. One more reason to hate him; one more reason why DD is
"wrong" to distrust him. Somehow the eavesdropper is now more
important in Harry's view, more guilty, more evil, than the so-called
friend who betrayed them to their deaths.

Harry's exaggerated reaction to Trelawney's revelation reminds me of
young James, who attacks young Severus without warning and without
provocation, two on one, "because he exists" (except that James is
calm and Harry is furious). It's not what Snape did but *who he is*
that makes the eavesdropper suddenly important to Harry, raised from
the level of informer to murderer. If the eavesdropper were Dung or
Lucius or Ludo Bagman or anyone else Harry knows, he would remain an
informer--instrumental in the murders, maybe, but not guilty of murder
himself.

Carol, who thinks that Snape's role in the deaths of Harry's parents
is small compared to Wormtail's and that, unlike Wormtail, he tried to
prevent the murders--and to atone for his sin when he failed