Will the Real Severus Snape please step forward?

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 167780


> > Julie:
> 
> > And as for Snape "snapping"...well, we have seen that happen 
> a couple of times, when Sirius "escaped" in POA, and again after
> he pulled Harry out of his worst memory in the Penseive. 
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> I agree with this, but my thought was that the decision made by 
> Snape was a snap decision, influenced by his hatred of Dumbledore. 
> I do not think it likely that Snape would completely lose it, as
> I acknowledge he has before, in front of a number of Death Eaters.
> No more nor less than that ;)

Julie again:
If it was a snap decision, I'd still expect Snape's behavior
to reflect that fact. If he suddenly and silently made the
snap decision that his hatred for Dumbledore had become too
overwhelming to let the old geezer live, the Snape I know
would certainly say so. I mean, when has Snape EVER remained
silent when he had an opportunity to utter a scathing remark?
Here with the Death Eaters watching, he has the perfect moment
if he's decided to take out the hated old man who's pushed
him too far one too many times. 

And why shouldn't he lose it, at least verbally, in front
of a number of Death Eaters? If he excoriates Dumbledore
while killing him, he'll only cement their belief in his
loyalty to Voldemort.

> > Julie
> 
> > Additionally, the stick point for me with the Tower scene 
> will always--ALWAYS--be Dumbledore's pleading before Snape even
> reaches him or meets his eyes. Until that can be explained in
> terms that make true sense for any interpretation but Dumbledore 
> pleading for Snape to "do it", then I will never buy a Tower!
> Snape who turned suddenly turned evil at the last moment.
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> Well, I'm not saying Severus turned suddenly evil. I do not 
> believe he is necessarily evil, just not Dumbledore's man, and
> simultanewously not LV's man either. Just that he is working
> ostensibly as a rogue with an influence from another in the
> background :)
> 
> I had obviously overlooked including the explanation I have for
> the words spoken by Dumbledore, sorry about that, when I wrote 
> that up last night I was recovering from some shocking revelations
> in Desperate Housewives ;).
> 
> Here and now, I present a further expansion on the "Severus, 
> please" business. Basically Dumbeldore realised at the time 
> Snape appeared that Severus was, in Dumbledore's own mind,
> bewtraying Dumbeldore. Having this revelation his words were
> meant as quite simply a question to reconsider what Snape was
> about to do, vis kill Duymbledore. It was neither pleading nor
> was it asking to fulfill a promise in other words. I hioe that
> makes some sense :). It does to me.

Julie again:
It doesn't make sense to me. You're implying that Dumbledore
can read Snape's mind when Snape is expressionless and not
even looking at him (as is the case with Dumbledore's first
pleading "please"). He wanted Harry to get Snape originally,
he knew Snape was there at Hogwarts, the DEs had invaded and
it was chaos, so he expected...what? That Snape WASN'T going
to make an appearance because he was busy brewing a delicate
potion and couldn't be disturbed? 

No, Snape was going to make an appearance under these
circumstances. And Dumbledore pleading before Snape even
has a reaction or eye contact means Dumbledore is pleading
for Snape to do (or not do) something they've *already*
discussed. That's all it can logically mean, unless 
Dumbledore is proficient at the previously unknown 
skill of Wizardly ESP. 

I suppose JKR could write it your way, with Snape not
venting his feelings, something that is totally out of 
character for him, and Dumbledore doing ESP on Snape
and then pleading in a deliberately converse manner
(not "Please don't do this" but just "Please..."). But
if she did write it that way, she'll have played us very
deliberately just for the fun of tricking us, and I'll
be quite disappointed. IMO of course.

<snip>

> 
>  Julie:
> > Okay I'm going to do this once again. You didn't include the 
> first few sentences of this quote. Here it is again in full:
> 
> > Lydon: Er - one of our connec- ... one of our internet 
> correspondents  wondered if Snape is going to fall in love?
> >  
> > JKR: Yeah? Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that 
> is a very  horrible idea. Erm ...
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> Thanks, but you'll see that was in one of my earlier posts on
> this thread :)
> 
> > Julie:
>  
> > In other words, her astonishment and promise of an explanation 
> in Book 7 refers to Snape falling in love, NOT to Snape's 
> redemptive pattern (JKR's definitive response to the latter is 
> "It is, isn't  it...")
> 
> > That's my reading anyway, and I'm sticking to it!
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> Well, as you say, and that is your entitlement ;)
>

Julie again:
So you think when JKR said "you" directly to Lydon, and
then a moment later said "*Whoever* asked that question..."
she was also refering to Lydon, the person she was talking
directly to? Maybe I need to rein in my inner Ravenclaw 
(or my inner Spock), but I can't help being stymied by
the illogic! I know in real life people do break up
sentences and insert tangential comments and so on when
they speak. But this would be a bit beyond the norm. 

Julie