seeds of betrayal

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 149782


> > zgirnius:
> > I'm not trying to argue Snape would not be pissed. He would be. 
The 
> > question is, would he consider taking Sirius to the Dementors 
> > himself, if it was just about the Prank? 

> Alla:
> 
> Right, to me the answer is absolutely yes, BUT again I am not 
saying 
> that Snape is angry with Sirius ONLY about the Prank, quite 
possible 
> that secret keeper business also adds to it, it is just trying hard 
as 
> I may I cannot find the evidence that Snape would NOT do that. IMO 
of 
> course.
> 


zgirnius:
Right. Your judgment of his character is that he would kill (probably 
HAS killed) for petty reasons, fairly casually. Pre HBP, I might have 
accepted this, and I would probably have pointed to precisely the 
canon we are discussing here as support: his actions at the end of 
PoA.

However, having read HBP and reconsidered all the previous books in 
light of this new information, I simply do not see the evidence to 
support this judgment. And I NOW see evidence which suggests to me 
rather the opposite. I would not now be surprised to learn that 
Dumbledore is the first man Snape has ever, personally, killed. 

To be clear, I'm not putting forward fluffy!bunny!Snape. And I'm not 
claiming I can PROVE Snape has never killed before. Just explaining 
why it now does not strike me as implausible. He joined the Death 
Eaters, a terrorist organization led by a super-evil Dark Lord. This 
COULD be because it was his ambition to kill, maim, and torture 
people for fun, but I'm with Julie. I think he did out of anger and 
frustration with his life. He felt betrayed by the way Dumbledore 
handled the Prank, angry that James became Head Boy, and jealous that 
Lily choosing James, unloved because of his lousy home life, 
unpopularity at school, and a Head of House who probably undervalued 
him due to his, shall we say, lack of social graces. He was going to 
show them all. But, as Dumbledore said, killing is not as easy as it 
looks. I'm just not so convinced that being a Death Eater means 
you've killed someone, in and of itself.

Reasons to suppose Snape may not have: there are certainly other 
things he could do for Voldemort-he did, for example, act as a spy. 
And, by Bella's account, Snape's reputation among other Death Eaters 
was that of someone who is good at `slithering out of action'.  (This 
is not to say Snape was never connected to anyone's death. He may 
have provided potions and information others used.)

Then, we learn that when Snape learned Voldemort planned to kill the 
Potters, he was deeply remorseful. It seems a mighty squeamish 
reaction to me, for a person so untroubled by pangs of conscience. (I 
know, you think Dumbledore could have been wrong about this. I'm 
giving both Snape and Dumbledore the benefit of the doubt, here.)

In PoA, Snape on a couple of occasions brings up the murderous nature 
of the Prank. Hypocrisy? Could be. Or maybe he's just expressing his 
honest opinion of the action itself. In the Shack there is a moment 
when Sirius, enraged, lunges at Snape. Snape's reaction is to issue a 
threat. A *threat*? No nasty sectumsempra (or other, less Dark) 
curse? This would be a case of self-defense! He's really missing his 
opportunity here. 

And then we have his one canon murder. Not casual at all, I'd say. 
Whichever side he is on, Snape has plenty of serious reasons behind 
his action, nothing petty at all. Starting with, he'll die himself if 
he doesn't do it. It is not a *moral* justification, but it is a far 
better reason than "Dumbledore was once mean to me." If he's 
Voldemort's man, it is also his Master's desire. If he has some 
attachment to the Malfoys, he saves Draco by this action as well. If 
he's Dumbledore's man, he may be following orders again, protecting 
Harry and Draco and the students, and his cover. Rowling sure wrote 
him into a tight corner before having him kill on page. And, well, to 
me at least, Snape seemed none to happy about it.

Also, Rowling said something suggestive in an interview: (2004 
Edinburgh World Book Day Interview). Not that I'm much into interview 
analyzing-I think she does try to avoid telling us anything we don't 
already know, which is exactly what she should do, IMO.
>Apart from Harry, Snape is my favourite character because he is so 
complex >and I just love him. Can he see the Thestrals, and if so, 
why? 
>He can see Thestrals, but in my imagination most of the older people 
at >Hogwarts would be able to see them because, obviously, as you go 
through life >you do lose people and understand what death is. But 
you must not forget that >Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen 
things that
 
zgirnius: I am intrigued by the use of the word seen.,,,did he not DO 
things? 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, yes that is true of course, but woudn't you agree that the 
only 
> reason for Snape's anger we DO see in the Shack is the Prank?

zgirnius:
The point of my initial post was precisely that the only reason we 
see for his anger in the Shack is NOT the Prank. His two CAPSLOCKS 
moments are telling Hermione not to talk about things she does not 
understand (which I take to be Snape's motives, namely Sirius' 
betrayal and not the Prank) and the speech he gives Harry about James 
trusting Sirius. Which is not even veiled.

Alla:
> But Snape does not bring up Lily and James in the Hospital Wing to 
> Dumbledore he brings "Tried to kill ME" and it tells me something 
very 
> different.

zgirnius:
I'll try again. `Tried to kill ME'
 as in "He says he didn't kill 
PETTIGREW, but we both know he tried to kill ME so why should we 
believe him?" (If Sirius had tried to kill John Doe while in school, 
Snape could have said `Tried to kill JOHN DOE' in an analogous 
argument, but unfortunately for Snape HE was the target of the Prank.)

Not saying you have to agree with me or anything
just trying to 
clarify my previous post.