Snape, Apologies, and Redemption--Lupin vs. DD

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 152610

> Leslie41:
> Well, Black deliberately tricks Snape into going to the whomping 
> willow when Lupin is in full werewolf mode.  James is the one who 
> stops Snape, because he realizes that Snape will most likely be 
> killed. Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape owed James Potter 
a "life 
> debt" after that.  Meaning that James had saved his life.  So 
yeah, 
> I would call what Sirius Black does attempted murder.    

Alla:

Could you prove to me that Black WANTED to kill Snape, not just 
scare him? Because I don't remember anything supporting that in 
canon.

Alla:
<SNIP>
> > There must be a reason why Snape assigns Harry class exactly the 
> > same essay that he wrote and we KNOW why he assigns the essay – 
to 
> > point who Remus was, could it be that he learned about who Remus 
> > was under the similar circumstances and went into the Shack 
> > thinking to try his hand in disposing of the dark creature, 
since 
> > he liked DADA so much?
> 
> Leslie41:
> You're really *really* reaching now.  There's not a shred of 
> evidence for this, and it makes no sense.    

Alla:

Evidence? OF course not, but that is my whole point. There is no 
evidence to prove ANYTHING with certainty as to what occured that 
night. What I am trying to show you that there are possible HINTS in 
canon that could be interpreted that way.

I did not invent the SAME werewolf essay showing up TWICE in the 
most critical moments of the books, especially in the Pensieve scene.

COuld it be that the "gun is there to shoot" at one point? I think 
si personally.

 
> > Could it be that this is why Dumbledore made Snape shut up about 
> > the events of the prank so easily? Not because of Dumbledore 
> > favoring Gryffindors or any other fanfiction staff,  but because 
> > Snape actually was mixed in the events of that night in NOT a 
good 
> > way.
> 
> Leslie41:
> Erm, again, no evidence for this.        

Alla:

Same thing - no evidence, just extreme wierdness of Snape NOT saying 
anything about Remus' condition. And we SEE in PoA how Snape could 
care less about public ranting when he feels that he was being , I 
don't know, suffered a big dissapointment?

Why didn't Snape go to the Governors with this discovery? Why? I 
believe DD threatened him with something, I could be wrong of 
course, but I can be right too.

> Leslie41:
> Well, show me the evidence and I'll consider it.  But you won't 
get 
> far on pointless, unsupported speculation, especially when that 
> speculation tends to contradict the accepted facts.
>

Alla:

And again - this is my point. There ARE not enough facts, that is my 
speculation does not contradict ANY of them, IMO


> Lanval:
> 
> > But we DO know quite well what the Death Eaters 
> > were up to at the time. They were going around 
> > murdering and torturing. 
> [snip}
> > Sirius Black is not guilty of attempted murder. 
> > He's guilty of telling a nosy kid, who had a mind 
> > to get four other boys expelled, the way into a 
> > secret passage.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> Snape may not have been into murdering and torturing himself and he
> may not even have actually participated in any such acts, but by
> joining the Death Eaters (as a late adolescent)he became 
responsible
> for acts they carried out whether he participated or not. He is
> responsible for the deaths of James and Lily Potter because he
> reported the contents of the prophecy to Voldemort, even though he 
may
> not have foreseen such a consequence and never wanted them to die.
> 
> Sirius Black is not guilty of attempted murder because he was just 
a
> high-spirited prankster afflicted with a teenage brain that could 
not
> foresee the consequences of his act.  He didn't really want Snape 
to die.
> 
> So:
> People are responsible for the unintended consequences of their 
actions.
> Or
> People are not responsible for the unintended consequences of their
> actions.
> Which is it?
> This is what bothers me about the arguments of the anti-Snapists on
> this list.
>


Alla:

Hmmmm. Can not speak for Lanval, but that is certainly not my 
argument.

Mine goes something like that - Snape joined the gang of racists, 
torturers and murderers. EVERYBODY in that gang whom we know of is 
guilty of making people die at one point of their lifes. The full 
blown DEs I mean, not just the informers in MoM, etc.

To me it makes absolutely no sense to say that Snape somehow was a 
lucky exception of that rule and was somehow excused or something 
from killing people either with Avada or poisons or anything else.

SO, it is not that Snape is Guilty by association, Snape is guilty 
because it is IMO much more likely than not that he did kill people.

If you can show me that Snape never killed, tortured , poisoned 
people while being in Voldemort's employ, I will absolutely say that 
he is not responsible for the acts of other  DE, just for his own, 
but I think he has plenty of blood on his hands, NOT just by 
association.

> Pippin:
> Are you saying that Draco was able to learn occlumency
> from Bella  because she's so genuinely gentle and trustworthy and 
kind?
> So very, very sane? 
<SNIP>

Alla:

No, Pippin, Draco IMO was able to learn Occlumency from Bella 
because crasy as she is he trusts her, her being a  family member 
and all that.


  > Leslie41:
> Oh, I don't think Snape is innocent by any means.  And I don't 
think 
> Black is evil.  I *like* Sirius Black.  As I said in a previous 
> post, I tend to give all the characters a good deal of slack. My 
> point is that people seem very willing to indict Snape for his 
> behaviors (or even *invent* nasty things he's done), when other 
> characters do things that are just as, or far more blameworthy.  
But 
> (IMHO) because those other characters are charismatic, or 
handsome, 
> or well-liked, they don't seem to have to bear the responsibility 
or 
> the blame for their actions the way Snape does.  They're given 
> a "pass".  Not fair.  Just not fair.  


Alla:

Consider another possibility if you may. I see Snape as the one who 
did all those nasty things and I am just AS surprised and very 
honestly so that no matter how many nasty things Snape does, the 
explanation is found that Snape is really the good guy and the hero.

I mean, when I read HBP I was pretty sure that there can be NO 
defense 
for Snape committing murder of Albus Dumbledore. I thought hey, this 
IS the ultimately nasty thing for which Snape cannot be defended.

Boy, was I proven wrong. Do I have any problem with it? Of course 
not, 
it is all the fun to blame the characters, to defend them, etc.

What I completely disagree with is that Snape gets blamed 
for "invented" nasty things. I think he had done PLENTY of "real" 
ones.

JMO,

Alla