Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 149553

Magda:

> Well, Snape goes down to the gates to pick up Harry when he's late
> for the feast - to check out what happened, I'm sure.  He also 
gives
> Harry a Saturday detention after the sectumsempra (sp?) incident
> which keeps him off the quidditch pitch - another place that
> "accidents" might happen.  Snape was also concerned - visibly - 
when
> Draco was caught trying to crash Slughorn's Christmas party - a 
party
> where Harry was present.  

> 
> He also gave detentions to Crabbe and Goyle, so that Draco's 
henchmen
> weren't available to him if he was planning to ambush Harry. 
> (Showing that Snape knows a lot about Draco's history of tactics.)

Magpie:
But I don't see these things as Snape following either boy around.  
He checks on Harry when he's already late--and after Draco's already 
had an opportunity to kill him.  The detentions also follow Harry 
being able to sneak up on Draco in a bathroom.  Giving detentions to 
C&G and being nervous to see Draco sneaking around are just generic 
Snape worry.  Snape makes Harry miss one Quidditch game, but Draco 
has been avoiding the matches anyway.

Of course, Draco was not caught trying to crash Slughorn's party and 
to me it seemed like Snape knew that.  Draco was caught sneaking to 
the RoR and was forcibly dragged into the party when he gave that to 
Filch as a cover story.

Snape probably does know Draco's tactics, so I'd think he'd notice, 
just as Harry does, that Draco is not using any of them this year.  
He's avoiding Harry.

In order to consider the theory that Snape thinks Draco is supposed 
to kill Harry, I need a scene in canon showing me this. A scene that 
can be explained by this idea best and most easily.  So far all of 
these scenes seem to just not quite support it.

Magda:
> 
> And I don't think the wine matters.  It was in Slughorn's office,
> never left it.  Why should Snape assume that Draco would poison
> anyone?  And for that matter, why would Snape assume that Draco had
> anything to do with the necklace either?  Or if he did, why assume 
it
> had anything to do with Harry?

> Snape would have been looking for signs of the same tactics Draco 
had
> used for years: ambush, assault, quidditch tricks.  

Magpie:
But Snape does think the necklace is Draco's doing--he asks him 
outright if it was.  He assumes he'd try to poison someone because 
he's trying to kill someone--something he's never done before.  And 
the wine is important because it's a murder attempt.  If Snape 
thinks Draco's attempting murder why wouldn't he consider that this, 
like the necklace, was Draco's doing?  And consider that with the 
wine, unlike the necklace, he knows who was supposed to get it?

That we know that Snape does immediately suspect Draco of the 
necklace caper proves that the assertion that Snape believes Draco 
would only resort to ambushes and Quidditch tricks is false.

Magda:
> Snape charges up to the Tower and finds Draco and three DE's with
> Dumbledore.  He looks around - no visible Harry.  One of the DE's
> says, "we've got a problem Snape, the boy doesn't seem able to -"  
I
> would submit that in that moment he realized who the target was. > 
I don't think Snape would ever show confusion; he covers it up with
> anger.

Magpie:

Yes, that would be the moment, but Snape's description doesn't seem 
to include any big realization.  Even if he's covering something up, 
we see him covering something up.  We'd see something rise and be 
smothered on his face.  This seems more like making the scene fit 
the idea rather than the scene naturally supporting it.  As you 
actually come out and describe here:

Magda:

> As for writing in moments of their interactions connected to the 
vow
> - well, she didn't so there's not much we can do about it.

Magpie:
That's totally backwards, imo.  We go by what she did write to 
conclude from that what's going on.  We don't decide what's going on 
and then assume it's the fault of the text for not backing us up.  
JKR's text actually does usually back us up.  To me it's one of the 
most constant characteristics of her writing.

-m