The Prank in DH (was Re: Predictions for the End (what I think, hope and know)

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 167278

Julie:
<snip> I think JKR may show the Prank, along with  
> Dumbledore's
> > reaction to it, as a main motivator for Snape turning toward 
> Voldemort.  In
> > one sense, the Marauders helped set a course toward Voldemort  
> ultimately
> > targeting Harry and his parents for death.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, of course that is ALL Marauders' fault <g>. Snape knowing the 
> word mudblood and possibly thinking that maybe Voldemort's 
> philosophy is superior to all others may not possibly come into 
play 
> at all. Yes, I am being a little sarcastic here :)
> 
> Yes, JKR said that we will find out more about Prank and about the 
> reasons of the hatred between Sirius and Snape, no?. That makes me 
> to believe that Snape will not be just victim of that night. If for 
> no other reason then because right now he **already** looks like a 
> victim, no? To me more means discovering something that we may not 
> yet know.

Julie now:
As I noted later in my post, I'm referring to this incident 
alone where Snape was the victim. I have no doubt that Snape
also victimized the Marauders whenever he could, though at
this point there isn't any evidence he actually put any of
them in mortal danger DURING THEIR SCHOOLDAYS rivalry.
 
> Julie:  
> > Please note, I am IN NO WAY absolving Snape of blame in regards  
> to the 
> > Potters'
> > deaths. 
> 
> Alla: 
> Um, Okay. Reads like that to me though. It is your right of course 
> to read it this way - that Marauders and only Marauders drove poor 
> Snape to Voldemort. I mean, this is your reading, right? There are 
> no other reasons why Snape joined Voldemort that we may learn. He 
> was just so pissed at James and Co that he decided to execute 
> revenge and join Voldemort. Sorry if I misread your argument.

Julie now:
I don't know why it reads that way to you, because I stated
clearly above that it was "a" main motivator, "along" with
Dumbledore's reaction to the Prank (indicating the latter
was part of the motivation, and that there were also even
more motivators). So, no, I do not think the Marauders and
only the Marauders drove Snape to Voldemort. I suspect 
Snape's upbringing (where he learned more Dark Arts than
any other 11 year old entering Hogwarts), his bad choice
of friends/mentor (Lucius Malfoy), and his personality
(easy to offense, fragile ego, inability to let go of a
grudge, etc) all played a part in Snape turning to the
Dark Lord. And NONE of these motivators discounts that
Snape had a CHOICE and had made the wrong one, repeatedly.

> 
> Julie:
> But it's similar to those who give Snape some of the blame for  
> > getting
> > Sirius killed because of his goading Sirius about his inactivity 
> at  Grimmauld
> > Place. If that was one of the straws that finally broke the 
> camel's back in 
> > regards to Sirius throwing caution and orders to the wind and 
> going to the  
> > MoM,
> > then it may be that Sirius (and James if he was involved at all 
in 
> the  
> > original 
> > idea) playing the Prank on Snape may have provided the straw that 
> broke  
> > *that*
> > camel's back and ultimately sent Snape to Voldemort. (The analogy 
> isn't  
> > exact,
> > as the actions in the latter case were more direct and malicious, 
> but  similar
> > enough to compare.)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Actually, I am not sure about other people who advanced this 
> argument, I know that I never did or at least never intended to. 
> 
> Snape's goating made no influence on Sirius death as far as I am 
> concerned. I find it disgusting,  but certainly do not think that 
it 
> is translates in Sirius death.
> 
> I will most definitely blame Snape for Sirius death, but that is 
> more connected to that he himself claimed to take part in it. I 
> interpret it as Snape supplying Voldemort with extrainformation 
> about him - be it the same info that Kreacher provided or anything 
> else.

Julie now:
There's no logic to that argument IMO, because Sirius's
death was completely *unplanned.* Voldemort had no way to
know Sirius would be at the DoM, no way to know he'd duel 
with Bellatrix, no way to know she'd get the upper hand on
him, etc, etc. Snape may have taken credit, but if he did
so to Voldemort, and Voldemort had even as much of his brain
left as he has of his original soul, he'd crucio Snape for
his unmitigated arrogance. (Apparently at Spinner's End 
Bellatrix is too insane and Narcissa to distraught to 
notice the illogic of Snape's claim.)

As for the analogy, it wasn't a perfect one I know. I was
just illustrating that actions piled upon other actions,
even when those actions seem insignificant, can have an
ultimate effect.


> Julie: 
> > If James were alive, I think he might regret how he treated Snape 
> during  
> > their
> > school years, and how he helped shape Snape's later actions. Just 
> as  Snape
> > (at least per Dumbledore) regrets how his informing Voldemort 
> about the 
> > Prophecy helped shape Voldemort's later targetting of the Potter  
> family.
> > (Here Snape's action was far more direct, but when one's actions, 
> small or  
> > large,
> > affect the actions of others, there's no erasing that effect 
> later.)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, as valid speculation as any, I would say, but I would also 
say 
> that we do not know that James helped shape Snape later actions, at 
> least not yet. Unless we of course learn that James was involved in 
> Prank and got the feet later, your analogy falls flat for me. 
> Because we **know** for a fact what Snape did - informing Voldemort 
> of the prophecy and what we know James did is going and saving 
Snape 
> life.

Julie now:
I agree that we do need to know more about the Prank, but
here I am referring to the entirety of the relationship between
Snape and the Marauders during their schooldays. If the Marauders
did indeed make a habit of ganging up on Snape, of hexing him
because he "existed" and so on, then that may well have helped
shape Snape's later actions. And by thinking James might have
regretted those actions at a later date (had he lived), I'm
making an assumption about James's character, a positive one.
After all Lupin regretted it and even Sirius admitted the
Mauraders often acted like berks (right word?) at school.  

> Julie:  
> > Definitely the Prank has something to reveal about the characters 
> involved  
> > and
> > their motivations or JKR wouldn't be featuring it in the crowded 
> plot of  DH. 
> > And
> > if the revelation is that Snape was equally responsible for the 
> Prank  (he 
> > knew 
> > Remus was a werewolf, planned to kill Remus, etc) as some fans  
> hope, it could
> > make sense if Snape is ESE or perhaps a version of OFH.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, some fans ( me :)) have those two exact essays flashing 
before 
> their eyes which were used for specific purpose to recognise who 
> Remus was when Snape is a teacher, so some fans ( me :)) think that 
> it is plausible that twenty years ago ( or something) Snape may 
have 
> had that exact revelation and acted on that.
> 
> Some fans ( me) could be wrong of course and have their crow handy.

Julie now:
This doesn't work for me because if Snape went to the Shack
knowing Lupin was a werewolf and hoping to kill him, it 
really doesn't make much sense that he's still so angry 
that Sirius tried to kill *him,* or that he would feel he
owes a life debt to James. Not when he knew what was waiting
all along. And, yes, you can say he's some great actor who
just pretends all this affronted rage, or that he's completely
irrational to be so irrational in POA. Or something like 
that...  

> Julie:
>  But since I believe 
> > Snape is DDM, I think the more likely revelation is going to be 
> that Snape  
> > *was* 
> > the victim in *that* particular incident, and it ultimately drove 
> him  into 
> > Voldemort's
> > arms...er, so to speak.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Snape **already** looks like one. 
> 

Julie now:
I know. I'm basically saying that this incident IS exactly
what it appears as related by Snape so far (and Lupin). That
Snape was the victim. (Again, *this* incident, not in every
confrontation with the Marauders.)

Julie, admiring va32h's comparison to Into the Woods, and
believing that our actions, both good and bad, do have
consequences, and that the actions of others are largely
irrelevant in evaluating the right or wrong of our *own*
actions. (I.e., two wrongs almost never make a right.)