VA/H=Mx13+RP? Snape's Culpability?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 147144

> Magpie:
> > I mean, from his pov think of it this way.  He's on Voldemort's
> > side.  His goal is to support him.  <snip>So 
> > think of if Snape was working for DD and he heard a prophecy that
> > said that someone who would destroy him could be found in such 
and
> > such a place.  He'd naturally pass that information on as a 
> > supporter of DD. 
> 
> Jen: There's a small problem with the comparison because Snape is 
> working toward an evil end. The actions are the same, the ends are 
> not. Culpability-wise, I mean. 

Alla:

Jen, thank you. Of course for DE Snape it would be a natural impulse 
to pass the information to Voldemort. I am just not getting how it 
makes him less culpable. Yes, he did passed the Prophecy to his 
boss, but the boss is the bad guy, REALLY bad guy, so if the 
argument is something along the lines that Snape did not know  that 
the murderous evil maniac will act upon the information that  the 
child would be born who can defeat him, as murderous evil maniac 
would act? I just don't see at all how Snape could not have known 
that. I am NOT buying stupid Snape and I am also not sure how 
Carol's argument fits into the picture at all.

Snape was thinking in terms of rewards and punishment? Okay, but how 
is that mutually exclusive of Snape understanding that Voldemort 
will go for a kill ASAP? IMO of course.

 

> Jen: 
My initial reaction to Snape-the-eavesdropper was he would know 
> exactly what it meant and was a scumbag for turning over a baby to 
> Voldemort. He's a smart guy and should know how prophecies work 
and 
> what kind of person Voldemort is.

Alla:

Indeedy again :-) It is still my reaction. :-)

Jen: 
> Here's my 'but', though. When you mention his age it makes me 
think 
> twice about it. Not that he doesn't have blame in what eventually 
> happened to the Potters (which no one seems to be arguing anyway), 
> age would be a poor excuse. However, I'm wondering where he was in 
> the stages of learning Occlumency and whether he would have been 
> able to hide the information from Voldemort even if he tried?

Alla:

That is an interesting point, Jen, but are you arguing that 
Voldemort "forcefully" so to speak, took information from Snape. I 
honestly do not remember any support for this argument. Could you 
refer me to canon, please?


> Jen: It paints a picture of Snape as awfully naive not to wonder 
for 
> a moment what Voldemort would do with the information. Naive or 
> worse, unconcerned. <snip>Still, naivete as a young man doesn't 
strike me 
> as being in-character. Unconcern does, though.

Alla:

Agreed

> Ginger:  
<snip>I'm just throwing up a possibility.  Not saying 
> it is canon, but a possibility.

Alla:

Ginger, thank you SO much for making me laugh (in a good way - I 
thoroughly enjoyed reading your post)

Ginger:
<SNIP>
> So I think we can assume that 1)LV sent Snape to spy on DD;  2)LV 
> expected something to be said that would interest him; and 3)LV 
> expected a full report from Snape.

Alla:

Since I believe that Voldemort was the one who send Snape to school 
to spy on Dumbledore as a teacher, I can definitely buy your 
possibility.


Ginger wrote: 
> We know LV believed the prophecy, but did Snape?
> 
> Snape doesn't seem to be the type who goes in for all the 
Trelawney 
> hype.  If Snape it one thing, it's logical.  (See the Book One 
> Obstacle Course.)  Prophecy, Schmophecy.  LV wants info!  And it's 
> Snape's job to get it.
> 
> So what does Snape hear that night?  Nothing.  <snip of very funny 
analysis> So Snape goes to give his report on ...nothing.  <snip> 
Exit Snape, turn the page, and suddenly, LV is believing the 
> prophecy.  Is that how it happened?  Probably not.  But it is a 
> possibility.

Alla:

Snort. Okay, I CAN buy that Snape did not believe in Prophecy, 
absolutely, BUT the problem I see with it is that if Snape thought 
that it was something unreliable and not worth mentioning,  then why 
would he tell it to Voldemort AT ALL?

I mean, really if it is something unworthy of Voldie's time, surely 
Snape can give to him something more interesting than Trelawney's 
proclamations?

Steve wrote:
<huge snip>
> But, again, comparing Snape's action specifically to Pettigrew's, I
> don't see how any can fail to see the difference between them. 
Snape
> was doing his nasty job unaware of the nature of the /specific/
> consequences. Wormtail/Petigrew on the other hand betrayed his best
> and probably only friends because he was a coward. He sold the 
Potters
> to Voldemort like a sack of cheap potatoes, and has shown no 
remorse
> for his actions. 

Alla:

I cannot speak about anybody else, but I am not comparing Snape and 
Peter's crimes. Sure, Peter's crime is more specific towards the 
Potter and huge. But I blame Snape as SNAPE, without comparing him 
to Peter. Is Peter guiltier in Potters' death? IF Snape is loyal to 
Dumbledore and indeed showed remorse, sure Peter is ( guiltier I 
mean). If Snape is Evil, than please disregard my statement. BUT 
without Snape Peter's betrayal may have never happened. Not because 
Peter would be a wonderful person, but because Voldemort may not 
have felt a need to come to Peter in the first place. Snape served 
as a catalyst for those events and for THAT I sure blame him.


Steve:
<SNIP>
Snape and Dumbledore, on the other hand, claim that
> Snape is deeply remorseful of the consequence of his actions.
> 
> Big difference as far as I'm concerned.

Alla:

Oh? Could you point me to the canon, where SNAPE claims that he is 
deeply remorseful?  I had been waiting to read this for quite some 
time.

JMO,

Alla