I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 167110

> Neri:
> I don't think canon makes that clear at all. Diary!Tom delivers a darn
> speech before calling in the basilisk. Voldemort takes two whole
> chapters in the graveyard before trying to kill Harry. Crouch!Moody
> rambles for several pages. Even Voldy in the Ministry utters a longer
> sentence than "hasta la vista, baby" before trying to AK Harry. What
> canon makes wonderfully clear is that killers pause for any amount of
> time that JKR requires for the plot and/or dramatic effect at the
> particular moment <g>.
> 

Pippin:
If this is a plot-driven story, how come we're arguing about the
nature of Snape instead of, say, how Harry is going to locate and
destroy all those horcruxes? Wondering why Dumbledore trusted
Snape and whether he was right to do so is a character issue, not
a plot question. And I find that JKR is consistent in providing
her characters with what she sees as sufficient motive for their
actions, except when there's a deliberate mystery. We aren't
supposed to know yet why Dumbledore trusted Snape, but I have
no doubt that JKR means to tell us in the end.

Of course Crouch/Moody and Voldemort/Riddle gloat. So does
Lockhart, for that matter.

Narcissists are always "on", always performing for their audience of
one. Crouch/Moody and Voldemort qualify. But no one that I recall
has ever suggested that Snape is consumed by self-love. If he's
pausing, it's not because he's caught up in his own show and 
out of touch with reality. And he does pause, not as long as
Draco did, but noticeably, which is all that matters. 

Snape does taunt -- when he has no intention of killing, as we
saw in the Shrieking Shack. "Give me a reason and I swear I
will"--doesn't that tell us that in fact Snape is not there to
kill anyone? He *talks* about handing Sirius and Lupin over
to the dementors, but he knows at the time that Dumbledore
would never stand for it. And in the event, when he has the
opportunity, he takes Sirius to the castle, just as Sirius had
asked.

Neri:
> As for Snape, I have the feeling that he too would normally like to
> take his time taunting his victims (see under Shrieking Shack) but in
> this case he was kind of pressed, as he needed to kill Dumbledore
> before the Vow decided to kick in, and besides, a speech would reveal
> more than JKR was ready to reveal about Snape's motives in HBP, so
> Snape had to make do with a dramatic pause. I just think that within
> this chapter alone Snape's manner is strongly contrasted with that of
> Draco. 
> 

Pippin:

Would normally like to? in this case? make do? 

What kind of drama is that? 

JKR even gave Snape another opportunity, when he had all the
time in the world.

"KIll me like you killed him, you coward," just begs for the riposte,
"My pleasure!" or "Oh, Potter, if only I could, but you see, the Dark Lord 
wants you alive and unspoiled." Instead, we get Snape screaming in
capslock and looking like he's being burned alive. There's a serious
lack of gloat there.:)



> Neri:
> And even with a completely innocent Snape, in order to maintain
> dramatic effect Harry should probably realize Snape is innocent in
> less than a two chapters complicated explanation. A pretty effective
> way to achieve this would be if ESE!Lupin or another ESE holding Harry
> at wand point would say: "Snape?? Killing Dumbledore?? It was *I* who
> killed Dumbledore!!!"

Pippin:
Or Hermione throws herself in front of Snape and says "NO, Harry! Snape
didn't kill Dumbledore. YOU did!!"

*Then* we get the explanations. 

> Neri:
> "Except that"... "might have"... "could have"... "would have"...
> Cm'on, this isn't a Bang. It's a Dud. Do I have to break some
> furniture with a big paddle to make the point?


Pippin:
Look at PoA.
Wouldn't it have been more bangy if the Potters *had* been betrayed
by their best friend? Instead of insane killer Sirius we got  wussy little
Peter, and he never would have had the opportunity if the Potters
and Sirius hadn't planned an elaborate ruse and then botched it.

The secret keeper switch *was* a dud -- and that's the bang, that the
Potters weren't so perfect and Sirius was not  monstrously
evil after all. The showdown between Harry and Sirius we were
expecting to happen didn't.  The main conflict in PoA turned out to
be between Harry and the dementors, though it was  treated as a 
sideshow until Harry drove them off and saved the day. 

Because the main conflict was *not* between the Potters and their 
betrayer, JKR could sacrifice the drama of having them betrayed by 
their closest friend for the pathos of the botched secret keeper switch.
It makes their loss all the more heartrending because they're more
human in their capacity for error. They concocted this elaborate
scheme to save themselves and all it did was lay the blame for their
deaths at the door of the one person who tried the hardest to
save their lives. 

Similarly the conflict between Snape and Dumbledore is not the
main conflict in the series (and cannot become so without displacing
Harry and Voldemort from their roles.)  Therefore I see no problem
with sacrificing the drama of Traitor!Snape and Betrayed!Dumbledore
for the pathos of DDM!Snape and Toocleverbyhalf!DD. 

Will it lessen Harry's grief, or the reader's, to learn that 
Dumbledore and Snape had a plan that failed?

Pippin