Trusting Snape

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 149063

PJ:
> OK, the embroidery is in reading so much between the lines that you
> lose the actual lines themselves. No where does the author say more
> than Dumbledore trusts Snape-not even why.

SSSusan:
We *all* do this, though, don't we?  We're all trying to figure this 
thing out, trying to puzzle it together, trying to guess where things 
are going, trying to interpret what we've got, given that many pieces 
are missing.  

I've just been chatting with someone offlist about this bit about the 
author not saying WHY DD trusts Snape.  It could be that it's going 
to turn out to be a horrible failing on DD's part, that DD merely 
trusted Snape because he tended to believe in second chances and 
tended to trust people more than he should have.  That's a 
possibility, though even it requires guessing and assumption-making.  

Another possibility, which also requires guessing and assumption-
making, is that there IS a real, solid, strong reason for DD's trust 
but that the reason DD hasn't revealed it (damn it(!), because it 
would help Harry if he would have!) is that the author doesn't want 
to let her AUDIENCE know `til the final book!  

Isn't it possible that either is correct?  Why is one "reading so 
much between the lines" and the other not?


PJ: 
> No where does the author tell us that "Severus, please" can't just 
> as easily be the stunned surprise of a man who's alarmed and 
> saddened to see someone he trusts joining up with the very people 
> he was so sure he'd abandoned ages ago. And no where does she say 
> that it's Snape's job per DD's orders to save himself.  Those 
> thoughts are all *I think* and *I surmise* based, I feel, on a need 
> to make Snape better and 1,000 times more noble than what the 
> author has ever (in 6 books!)given us on the printed page.

SSSusan:
Of course she doesn't tell us what "Severus, please" does or doesn't 
mean!  Doesn't it speak volumes that, after SIX books, people are 
still scratching their heads and arguing about Severus Snape?  JKR 
has carefully set things up so that we WILL be wondering and puzzling 
and trying to figure out what we know and what we're assuming.  It's 
the beauty of it all!  

But to say that the particular thoughts you don't agree with are 
based on "a need to make Snape better and 1,000 times more noble" 
than what we've seen on the page is just not fair, imo.  It may be 
true that "Severus, please" *could* mean DD is just stunned and sad, 
but that's definitely interpretation, as is MY thought that it's DD 
imploring Snape to "listen" and do what needs to be done (i.e., kill 
him).  They're both interpretations.

I have NO need to make Snape into a better or more noble character 
than just what he is!  He is ambiguous.  He is snarky.  He is 
sarcastic and sometimes cruel.  He has thwarted Harry.  I accept all 
of that.  Yet I do also see that he saved Harry's life in SS/PS.  I 
see that he did attempt to teach Harry Occlumency.  I see that he did 
follow DD's instructions at the end of GoF and headed off on the 
dangerous mission DD set for him.  I see that he did pass along the 
message to the Order the night of the DoM battle.  These things can 
be argued as not being noble, I suppose, but they can also be argued 
as showing Snape's loyalty to DD/the cause of defeating Voldemort.  
It's not as if the man has done NOTHING, ever, that was noble or good 
or helpful!  


PJ:
> If Snape were truly DDM! then he'd have taken Flitwick and a few
> Aurors/DA up to the tower (since he could get through the barrier)
> and finally come out in the open as DDM!Snape before he died.  The
> vow would've allowed him to get that far since he was also on his
> way to rescue Draco as well as to see if he'd done the deed.
>
> The tower DE's would've died (including that nasty werewolf) Harry
> and Draco would've survived and could've worked it out between
> themselves (Harry was a witness to DD's promise of hiding Draco's
> family and could've convinced the order to honor that promise)since
> now Draco knew he wasn't cut out to be a DE and Harry knew Draco
> refused to kill DD even though it would mean his family would be
> killed.  A mutual respect may have had a chance to blossom.
>
> Draco's soul as well as his future would've been saved, the Hogwarts
> houses would've been well on their way towards unity, and both kids
> could've worked together to end LV's reign since Draco most likely
> knows a few things about what Harry desperately needs information on
> considering who is family is.


SSSusan:
Can you tell me how Snape would have known what was happening on the 
tower? that he was needed there? that he needed to gather 
reinforcements?  And assuming he did know all of that, why do we know 
that the tower DEs would have died?  Given that many Order members 
were already engaged in battle on other levels, how many would have 
been available to accompany Snape up to the tower, or could've 
escaped their current struggles to do so?  Without reinforcements the 
DEs, assuming Snape to be on their side, would allow his presence.  
With Order reinforcements and if he openly announced allegiance with 
the Order, the DEs would have, of course, turned on him.  I don't see 
how the survival of Draco, Harry & an openly DDM!Snape would have 
been assured at all.  


PJ:
> Dumbledore may have died anyway, but Snape didn't have to kill him.

SSSusan:
But that's rather the POINT of at least some of us DDM!Snapers' 
position. :-) If DD was dying anyway from the cave potion/lake water, 
then *he* was the one cognizant of that and thus "in control" of the 
dying up to the point of asking/ordering Snape to kill him, and thus 
the question to ask is, "What would have been gained from DD's just 
dying vs. from Snape's having KILLED him?"  

Certainly DD could have just died.  Draco wouldn't be a murderer, 
assuming he hadn't decided he had the balls for the job & killed DD 
after all.  Snape would be a *known* traitor to Voldy, with no DD 
around to protect him.  Harry would likely remain as distrustful of 
Snape as always.

If Snape killed DD, however, his cover as an agent for Voldy is 
maintained **and** strengthened by virtue of having done the 
wonderful favor of killing "the only wizard YKW ever feared."  Being 
trusted by the DEs, then, he would be in a position to instruct them –
 to get them out of Hogwarts without killing others, to ensure they 
didn't kill Harry, etc.  Meanwhile, Draco is relieved of his burden, 
and the UV has been fulfilled.  Harry, of course, will be even more 
convinced of his distrust of Snape. :-)

Bottom line is, no one has to be convinced of any one way of viewing 
Snape.  My contention is that JKR has presented us with a character 
who's very purposely ambiguous, whose motives aren't yet known, and 
that she's probably thrilled to death with the ongoing arguments 
about this character.  Yet for any "side" to argue the other is 
reading too much between the lines, well, I would say that -- 
precisely because of what Jo's done -- we all are reading between the 
lines... have to, as a matter of fact!

I suppose it's natural to assume one's own preferred view is the most 
straightforward, but even OFH!Snape isn't totally, is it?  How does 
OFH!Snape explain Snape's saving Harry in the 1st year Quidditch 
match?  How does it explain Snape's informing the Order that Harry 
had taken off for the DoM?  How does it explain Snape's saving DD's 
life at the start of the year and then AKing him at the end of it?  
I'm not saying OFH!ers can't offer explanations for these; I'm simply 
saying that I suspect those explanations would include as 
much "reading between the lines" and assumption-making as the various 
explanations ESE!Snapers and DDM!Snapers must offer up to other 
questions.

Siriusly Snapey Susan