Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 159178

> Alla:>
<SNIP>
> > one there could be something in the book ( spell or potion) that
> > somehow connected with why Dumbledore trusts Snape. What if this
> > spell or potion would reveal to Dumbledore that he really should 
not
> > have trusted Snape when he came back, like I don't know - Snape 
lied
> > to him as to what this potion or spell does or something like 
that?
> 
> Magpie:
> That's a good possibility--though again, if that's the case why 
was Snape 
> careless enough to leave the book behind in his classroom?  And 
why let 
> Harry get away with hiding it?  Harry might have taken the book to 
> Dumbledore at any time.  <snip>

Alla:

Sure, that's a good point - Evil Snape obviously takes risk with 
Harry taking a book to DD, on the other hand, Snape knows that Harry 
for example did not report to DD about what happened in Occlumency 
lessons, right? If Snape himself did not do it. SO, maybe Snape is 
banking on Harry keeping a book a secret, but yes, it is  a big risk.


Alla:
> > Second possibility IMO would be something in the book connected 
to
> > the Prank, which Dumbledore may not have known and which would 
make
> > Snape look complicit? <snip>
 Magpie:
> Ooh--that's kind of cool.  Though wouldn't he want the book out of 
Harry's 
> hands if that was the case?

Alla:

Here I am not so sure, because if Snape hides the book to make his 
past look better only for narcisistical reasons, etc, why would he 
care if book is in Harry's hands?

I mean, Snape is not of high opinion of Harry's intellect, right? 
For all I know, Snape may think that Harry will never figure out 
what is in the book relates to Prank, he is too stupid for that, 
Dumbledore on the other hand will understand that.

But of course anything is possible.


Magpie: 
> That's sort of the conundrum with the whole thing.  Snape's got to 
both care 
> about something enough to not turn Harry in to Dumbledore, but 
casual enough 
> that he left the book unguarded and didn't do much to get it back 
when he 
> realized Harry had it.

Alla:

The more I think about it, the more I am loving symbolysm Jen 
suggested and I love it even more because it works either way.


> Carol responds:
> I intend to bring up a question along these lines in the chapter
> discussion for "Sectumsempra" in November, but for now I'll point 
out
> that Snape not only didn't tell Slughorn that Harry was cheating, 
he
> didn't expel him, or request his expulsion, for using a potentially
> deadly spell. I can only conclude that Snape is trying to help 
Harry
> somehow, to keep him safely in school, for one thing, but he may 
also
> want him to use the book. (Note that he didn't identify himself as 
the
> author of the spells and potions hints at that point, as he could 
have
> done.) Maybe if Harry had told him the truth about where he found 
the
> spell, Snape would have told the truth in return?
> 
> Seems like yet another missed opportunity for understanding to me.


Alla:

Eh, going back to speculating, if Snape indeed wants to hide the 
book from Dumbledore then **of course** he would not complain about 
Harry cheating, because erm... then he would reveal himself as the 
author and if there is something in the book that is damaging to 
him, then why would he want to do it?

Seems like totally possible self-serving reason to me. Now, not 
saying that another **noble** reason is not possible, but just don't 
see the fact that Snape did not tell anybody about Harry cheating as 
definite proof that he was helping Harry.



> > Alla:
<SNIP>
Does
> > Dumbledore has sense of entitlement to know truth every time 
Harry
> > wants to conceal it from him? Not in my book.
> 
> Pippin:
> I don't think Dumbledore needs legilimency to know when Harry is
> lying to him. I think that's obvious from body language, vocal 
inflection
> and common sense. He uses legilimency *after* Harry's lied to him,
> when the lie itself proves there's something Harry thinks 
Dumbledore
> has a right to know. Otherwise, Harry could just refuse to answer
> the question.

Alla:

Still don't see Dumbledore entitled to know the truth every time 
Harry wants to conceal it, but as to Harry could just refuse to 
answer the question. My books are still packed except HBP, but 
didn't Harry refuse to answer question In CoS about voices and 
didn't DD look into his eyes anyways?

I find Legilimency extremely disturbing, extremely.

 
> Alla:
> > Are you saying that If he knew that in addition to celebrating 
Draco 
> > threw Trewlaney out he would not have gone after horcruxes?
> > 
> > Why? Just curious.
> 
> Pippin:
> Trelawney and Harry could have given evidence that Draco was 
> involved in an attack.  That's what Dumbeldore was waiting
> for, because without proof he knew he wouldn't be able to get 
> Draco to accept the Order's protection or  else send him to
> Azkaban to keep him from being murdered.
> 
> Harry, meanwhile, was so anxious to get Dumbledore to agree that
> Draco was plotting something that he neglected to report what 
> Draco had actually done. 


Alla:

Thanks for clarifying, but where do you get that if Dumbledore had 
evidence he would have moved on it? Didn't he claim that he knew 
plenty about Draco's activities, etc and as we debated earlier he 
sure did not do anything when Ron and Katie were hurt?

I mean, Harry of course forgot to tell him that, canon is clear, I 
just don't see it as a something that would have changed anything.

IMO Dumbledore was set on leaving the school and he did not change 
his mind after learning that Draco done the job ( fixing the 
cabinet), that is what crucial isn't it in order for the attack to 
start, not whether Draco pinched Trelawney? IMO of course.

 
> > Alla:
<SNIP>
As I said, it was significant burden to add, I get
> > it, but not as significant as for any **normal** child, who did 
not
> > encounter Voldemort yet IMO.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> There is a huge difference between knowing that Stalin is after 
> you  and thinking that you are the only one who can stop Stalin.
> Through OOP, Harry was only trying to stay alive. He never 
> thought he had to hunt down Voldemort and destroy him.

Alla:

I am not inclined to argue substance here, as I said repeatedly, I 
get the burden to add, I only argue the degree of the burden, that's 
all.



  
> Pippin:
> But it's the things you don't like about Dumbledore, his aloofness
> and his uncompromising nature,  that let him hold the Order to a 
> higher standard. If he just did what would make his followers 
happy,
> he'd be no better than Scrimgeour or Fudge. He doesn't try to
> justify his positions because at bottom they're not based on 
logic --
> you either feel in your heart that what he wants you to do is 
right, 
> or you don't.

Alla:

Yes, precisely - if I feel in my heart that Dumbledore end goals are 
right, why should I necessarily swallow the means by which he does 
it?

Pippin:
 
> I don't get what you mean about Dumbledore dragging people to
> a better future. He hasn't got a gulag, and nobody is being 
dragooned
> into the Order.

Alla:

I only mean his leadership style used to lead people in future 
without Voldemort, but we have to agree to disagree on this, because 
you seem to believe that people who want the same as Dumbledore but 
want to do things differently have choice, I do not think so 
personally.

JMO,
Alla