[HPforGrownups] Re: The UV

[rebecca]

No: HPFGUIDX 155947

> "colebiancardi"wrote:
>
>> If you read anything in the spy genre,
>> those double agents do the same things
>> as Snape(even worse things, quite frankly)
>> and they are not moronic characters,
>> but deeply conflicted characters.

> Eggplant:
> Have you ever read a spy novel where the loyal spy tells the President
> of the United stated that he's going to assassinate him, and the
> President said it's a brilliant idea and still trusts him 100%, and
> then the spy actually does it and kills the President? I haven't.
>
> And if Snape and Dumbledore behaved in the way you suggest then they
> are not deeply conflicted, they are deeply brain damaged.

Rebecca,

True, however I can think of a few other situations which would leave them 
not brain dead under this premise, but at least morally suspect to some. 
Hear me out for a second - I'm not a Snape-is-a-knight-in-shining-armor 
advocate, and I am only speculating.  I'm not "married" to what I am about 
to say.

I haven't read a spy novel with the plot suggested here, but I have read 
real-life accounts of men who served in World Wars I & II, even Vietnam, who 
made pacts with their comrades and friends about how they wished to die in 
certain situations like paralyzing injuries, capture and the like. In some 
cases those pacts were carried out, and in some others they were not.  Allow 
me to explain.

It's possible that Draco's efforts on behalf of Voldemort and Snape's 
killing of Dumbledore are separate events (althought intertwined as JKR 
writes them) which might deserve their own independent scrutiny. The whole 
obvious and repeated HBP descriptions about Dumbledore's tiredness and his 
dead hand do make me wonder if Snape really saved him permanently in the 
first place; perhaps Snape slowed the progression of whatever curse 
Dumbledore suffered from the ring Horcrux. Maybe the only thing he *could* 
do to was save Dumbledore *at the time* - we just don't know because alas, 
we don't have all the pieces to this maddening puzzle. Dumbledore also does 
remark to Harry that Voldemort would want to keep someone who found his 
Horcruxes alive long enough to question them because he didn't think anyone 
else knew about them - if you're dying slowly, you're not dead right away. 
Specifically conflicting is the following passage:

'As a matter of fact, I did,' said Dumbledore. 'I was sure it was you.'



'Why didn't you stop me, then?' Malfoy demanded.



'I tried, Draco. Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you on my 
orders -'



'He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother -'



'Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but -'



'He's a double-agent, you stupid old man, he isn't working for you, you just 
think he is!

Snape did promise via UV to Narcissa - but did Snape ever tell Dumbledore 
that?  Personally, I'd lean to "no" based on Dumbledore's reply to Draco. 
However, if Snape and Dumbledore knew Dumbledore were dying in the first 
place (albeit slowly), Snape might not see any reason to tell Dumbledore 
that he'd made the promise.  However, Snape might really know in Spinner's 
End what Voldemort wants to have happen and as he says, "He means me to do 
it in the end, I think." It's plausible that Snape and Dumbledore both knew 
that Snape would have to make some sort of choice at some time, and with 
Dumbledore's admitted acceptance of death (well-organized mind and all 
that), I can easily see Dumbledore saying or alluding "if it's a choice 
between you and me, take me out." Perhaps the convergence of Dumbledore, 
Snape, and Draco on the Tower only acelerated what Hargrid heard Snape and 
Dumbledore arguing about earlier.

Again, merely speculation with some liberal use of canon.  Note that I am 
not saying that what Snape did or did not do to Dumbledore was right, wrong, 
moral or just, as I am only presenting some food for thought the UV may not 
be the only reason Snape killed Dumbledore.

Rebecca