What really happened on the tower.

[eggplant107]

No: HPFGUIDX 155529

"colebiancardi" <muellem at ...> wrote: 

> we aren't really sure if Snape *knew* 
> what Draco was supposed to do; 

Then Snape was rather stupid to interrupt Narcissa right when she was
about to blurt it out, and if Snape made the vow and he didn't even
know what he was vowing to do then we can only gaze at the stupidity
of the man in slack jawed wonder.  

> If Snape *told* them to soak their heads, 
> it would have made Bellatrix more 
> suspicious of Snape 

Big deal, Bellatrix never trusted Snape anyway but her trust was not
important, Voldemort's was.

> Snape's involvement with the UV gave him 
> the perfect opportunity to spy on Draco 

Not so perfect, Draco still kept Snape largely in the dark about his
activities. A unbreakable vow would be grossly disproportionate to a
good Snape, a loyal CIA agent would never assassinate the President of
the United States because he thought it would slightly help his
undercover work. Real Human Beings just don't behave like that,
although a character in a very bad children's novel might, but JKR
seems incapable of writing a bad book. 

> outnumbered? 

Snape may have been outnumbered that terrible night in the tower but
he was not outgunned, the other Death Eaters seemed terrified of him,
and he had the element of surprise on his side. It's interesting that
Harry was able to beat the hell out of all the Death Eaters that night
with the significant exception of Snape. The man is very powerful. 

> And then what?  He doesn't complete Draco's
> task and turns his wand on the DE's and 
> Snape would drop dead on the spot.  

He would drop dead on the spot because Snape decided to make that vow,
a decision that was either incredibly evil or incredibly stupid. Snape
is either a brilliant bastard or a good natured imbecile. I tend to
think a brilliant evil Snape would make a better character for book 7
than a comic relief Snape.

Eggplant