High Noon for OFH!Snape

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 149439

Nora wrote:
> <snip> What I do wonder about, though, are the changes in situation
throughout the book.  I see Snape as playing a dangerous game all
through OotP and HBP, balancing two masters as well as his own
desires.  Well, it's canonical that he can feel pretty strongly about
what he himself wants, and the kind of game that he's playing is one
which is hard to keep up for too long. <snip>
 
> Now this is idle speculation, and I'll label it as such: does anyone
think there was some sort of internal calculus going on here, where
Snape was weighing Draco's life against Dumbledore's, but also in 
terms of what he gets out of each?  After all, by taking the Vow, as 
you said, Snape has committed himself to being involved in the death
of either Draco or Dumbledore (or himself).  Someone's got to give. 
And this could fit with an OFH! who gets some benefit out of saving
Draco, but also gets his freedom from Dumbledore.  That's speculation,
of course, but there's some thematic legs behind the idea that Snape
chafes at the bit. <snip>

Carol responds:
The benefits to protecting Draco seem to be partly personal (he likes
Draco, he is apparently on good terms with the Malfoy family, he's
moved more than he wants to be by Narcissa's tearful appeal) and
partly related to duty (he's Draco's HOH and Dumbledore wants him to
do it). So both instinct/personal feeling and duty/obligation would
motivate him to protect Draco (and "help" him in the sense of keeping
him out of trouble) with or withot the vow. Yes, he's walking a
tightrope between life and death, serving or seeming to serve two
masters, and has been doing so at least since the end of GoF. The UV
as initially proposed by Narcissa could result in his death, but (IMO)
the risk seems no greater than the risks he has already been taking,
and he's vowing to do what he already intends to do. He has already
gone to great lengths to persuade Bellatrix that he's loyal to
Voldemort and refusing to take the risk would prove that what he
valued was his own skin. (And there is always, of course, the danger
that she or Narcissa would kill him on the spot if he refused.) So he
takes a calculated risk--confident, probably, in his ability to
protect and "help" (i.e., manipulate) Draco based on past experience.
I wouldn't call that hubris so much as a reasonable estimate of his
own abilities. And there is no need at this point to weigh Draco's
life against Dumbledore's. Draco's welfare and Snape's obligation to
protect him or die are the only factors involved.

With the third provision, which clearly takes Snape by surprise given
both the hand twitch and Narcissa's failure to mention it when she
asked him to take the vow, the stakes change. Now three lives are at
stake--Draco's, which we know he wants to save and is already
committed to save, Dumbledore's, and his own. That he does not want to
take the third provision also seems evident, and we can only speculate
on his reasons for doing so. But that he has anything to gain by
Dumbledore's death seems to me highly questionable.

Granted, he does sometimes chafe under Dumbledore's orders or
reprimands, but he has (as he tells Bellatrix) a "comfortable job"
(much more safe and comfortable than the life of a Death Eater). He
has authority and power of sorts, he has the trust of a great and
powerful wizard, he has the respect of his colleagues (who follow his
lead in CoS regarding Lockhart), he has the freedom to go anywhere in
the WW with no danger of being sent to Azkaban. (It isn't just his job
at Hogwarts that's keeping him out of prison; he's been cleared of all
charges and his name has never, AFWK, been publicly circulated as a
former DE. Yes, the Wizengamot heard Karkaroff's accusation and DD's
response, but there have been no consequences. You can't be tried for
being a DE when the charges have already been dropped.) What can he
possibly gain from killing Dumbledore? Revenge for some small slights?
Better to let him die when he comes to Snape for help after the
encounter with the ring Horcrux. That way he could simply claim
inability to save him rather than being charged with murder.

What are the consequences of openly killing Dumbledore? Yes, he can
save his own life and Draco's (and save Draco from splitting his soul
through murder), but what does he gain? Temporary status as the most
trusted lieutenant of a murderous tyrant who can turn on him at any
moment; loss of freedom and employment and whatever respect he once
had; infamy and hatred of all good people in the WW. That's what
"freedom from Dumbledore" amounts to.

Death seems vastly preferable, especially a heroic death defending
Dumbledore, but that would mean sacrificing Draco, which it seems
clear that neither Snape nor DD considers a desirable outcome. And as
I've noted in previous posts, killing DD (or at least getting him off
the tower and enabling him to die) enables Snape to get the DEs off
the tower and out of Hogwarts, at the same time keeping Harry (whose
presence Snape must have suspected because of the second broom) from
rushing out and fighting four and a half DEs (Snape would be dead from
the UV; Harry would be facing four committed DEs and Draco).

Snape could not, of course, have anticipated the situation on the
tower, with a weak and wandless Dumbledore and DEs getting past the
increased protections that DD had placed on Hogwarts. Maybe as he
heard that last provision, he had some dim hope that he and DD
together could keep the situation outlined in the third provision ("if
it seems that Draco will fail") from occurring and that he would not
be forced to "do the deed" or die. (Again, not necessarily hubris;
more like the desperate hope of a man diagnosed with a fatal illness.)
But that he could personally benefit from killing Dumbledore, that he
would be better off as Voldemort's half-trusted lieutenant than as
Dumbledore's man (who saved the lives of at least three people in HBP)
seems to me to stretch credibility. If Snape is indeed OFH!, his best
bet is to remain in comparative safety and comfort at Hogwarts as a
colleague of McGonagall et al., worrying about his students' marks on
their OWLs and interhouse Quidditch rivalries and the petty
satisfaction of deducting points from Gryffindor for "cheek." That he
would give up that cozy position for the "glory" and danger of being a
DE, no longer able to "slither out of action" because he would
constantly be under Voldemort's eye, is a doubtful proposition indeed.

On a side note, the question has been raised about Narcissa's
motivation in adding the third provision. It seems to be a spontaneous
thought, occurring after Snape has agreed informally to the first
provisions. (I don't think, BTW, that Narcissa planned the UV from the
beginning. It seems that she didn't want Bella's company, which would
have been necessary if she intended from the outset to manipulate
Snape into taking the vow.) I'm not sure what she has to gain from it
unless, as has been suggested, she wanted to protect her son from
becoming a murderer at Snape's expense. (I don't see her as being a
murderer by proxy since she didn't order the murder in the first
place, but she's certainly an accessory to the crime.) I suspect that
the third provision is the consequence of the DADA curse, silently and
automatically operating to trap both Snape and Dumbledore and to
benefit Voldemort. (Snape certainly knew that he would have to teach
the class and that DD would succeed in convincing Slughorn to teach
Potions. It may have been at that exact moment that he agreed to do
so, activating the curse and trapping Snape.) That being the case,
there's no need for Narcissa or Bellatrix to be willing agents of
Voldemort in administering the vow or sealing the magical bond. They
need only be unwitting agents of the curse itself. (Just my own view,
not one I expect you to share.

Carol, drinking to the death of OFH!Snape with elf-made wine--or
should that be Rosmerta's best oak-matured mead?