Gone a while - question about Snape

[potioncat]

No: HPFGUIDX 154596

 
> zgirnius:
> I think assuming Trelwney's statements to Umbridge in OotP about 
how 
> long she had been working at Hogwarts are perfectly accurate is not 
> reasonable. When a person says how many years they have been doing 
> soemthing, they are not going to worry about a few months here or 
> there. 

Potioncat:
Oh, I agree. In addition, I don't Trelawney or JKR are very precise 
people. Yet, this is what I found in chpt 15 when Trelawney is 
answering Umbridge:
"Now, you've been in this post how long, exactly?"
After a slight pause in which she seemed to decide that the question 
was not so offensive that she could reasonably ignore it..."Nearly 
sixteen years."

OK, at that point, I thought I would help Carol's Halloween theory. 
But when I kept reading, I saw Trelawney word things differently.

Two or three weeks pass (as I read it. There are at least two as 
stated in chp 16) In chpt 17 in Trelawney's class--no Umbridge--and 
Trelawney says to the students, "I say nothing of 16 years devoted 
service...it has passed, apparently, unnoticed."

There is talk of more time passing. Of Quidditch practices, then in 
chpt 19, October "extinguished itself in a rush of howling winds." 

So it seems Trelawney's 16 years happened before Halloween. However, 
if we think (and one could hardly argue against it) that Trelawney 
wasn't being precise, we could say Halloween is still within the time 
frame.



> zgirnius:
> It seems to me that the same characteristics that might make Snape 
a 
> reasonable person to send to try and land a job at Hogwarts also 
make 
> it more reasonable for Dumbledore to decide not to take action 
> against Snape when he is caught listening at the keyhole.

Potioncat:
Yes, it seems "listening at keyholes" is a trait admired by 
Dumbledore.
>