"Bad Snapers," Karma, and the End of Snape (was Re: Of Sorting and Snape)

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 175712

> prep0strus:
> Life isn't, as many of these people were working towards valiant
> goals, but at the moment of death
 death came to them as it does to
> anyone, without meaning or fanfare.

zgirnius:
Yes, I think this is definitely something I also saw. It's the lives 
that matter.

> prep0strus:
> Dumbledore:  He's vulnerable for a long time, but when he dies, it's
> another instant thing.  He's unarmed, and not attempting to 
accomplish
> anything – except perhaps to save Draco's soul (a plot point I felt
> when sorely unaddressed in DH).  We learn he did plead for his own
> death, which makes it interesting – he certainly had any final words
> he wished to have.  But it was another rather anticlimactic death

zgirnius:
Gee, I have to disagree on this one. First, it was not anticlimactic. 
At the time we read it, either it was a cold-blooded murder at the 
hands of a traitor he protected and trusted for fifteen years, or it 
was a sacrifice made for the greater good with the cooperation (also 
a sacrifice, that) of his uber-loyal spy. And he was trying to 
accomplish things as he died - save Draco's soul, as you say, and 
also protect Harry (that Expelliarmus worked because Dumbledore first 
froze Harry). And if one bought at the time that it was a willing 
death, he was also trying to further whatever DDM!Snape plot of 
choice you liked at the time.

OK, so now we know it was the planned death, still dramatic even 
though he was dying, because of Snape's involvement. And with that 
death he was trying to accomplish a death undefeated, while Master of 
the Elder Wand (oops, Draco messed that up for him), to keep that 
power out of Voldemort's hands. And incidentally, to cement Snape's 
position as Voldemort's right hand man, which would leave Snape in a 
position to try and protect the students as Headmaster, and hang 
about Voldemort waiting for the moment to tell Harry about his little 
soul-bit problem. I really think this one qualifies as one of the 
meaningful, dramatic deaths.

> prep0strus:
> Dobby & Snape escape this pattern.  Snape, though, like most of our
> characters is not doing anything of importance.  He dies for no 
reason


zgirnius:
Well, yeah. Though in Snape's case I thought that was highly 
suitable. He dies because Voldemort, whom Snape has successfully 
deceived for 16 years, is a dangerous sociopath who might kill anyone 
at any given time for unpredictable reasons. Something his pointless 
murder of his best lieutenant (he thought) illustrated beautifully.

> prep0strus:
> (TANGENT: Voldemorte's reasoning is faulty, and I still don't 
totally
> follow his logic.  If he really felt that he had to kill the holder 
of
> the wand, why not simply kill him?  

zgirnius:
Because Voldemort believed Snape, as the murderer of Dumbledore, was 
Master of the Elder Wand, Voldemort had to use the wand indirectly, 
it might not act properly against its true Master (as was indeed 
illustrated by Voldemort's death, a few chapters later). By using it 
to trap Snape in the bubble and letting Nagini do the honors, he 
avoided that danger.

> prep0strus:
> I feel like
> Voldemorte should know wand rules better, and know he needs to
> `defeat' him, not KILL him,

zgirnius:
He does not know wandlore, it appears to be a field of magic of which 
he was ignorant. It seems a very obscure field, known to very few. 
Anyway, yes, he had reason to believe a murder was not necessary - 
both GW and DD seemed to have got the wand by seizing it. But 
Voldemort had already done that, by stealing it form the tomb of 
Dumbledore, and he could tell the wand was not in any way unusual, it 
allowed him only his ordinary high level of performance. 

He may have figured that GW and DD did not figure out what they 
needed to do to make the wand work right, or did not its failure to 
deliver on its promise, or were too weak (as LV would think it) to do 
what it took. (A more reasonable thing to suppose of Albus than of 
Young Gellert). SO he figured the wand must have attaced to Snape 
when Snape killed DD, and that he therefore had to kill Snape.

> prep0strus:
 and actually, killing a loyal follower
> seems much more out of character to me than one would think.  Since
> GoF I was surprised at how Voldy DIDN'T seem like your traditional
> megavillain.  Giving Peter the silver hand, 

zgirnius:
Oh, the silver hand. I ADORE the silver hand. Such a sweet gift that 
was, from a grateful Dark Lord to his loyal follower. Because I just 
adore it (now that I fully understand what happened there), let us 
recall that touching exchange:

> GoF:
> Voldemort raised his wand again and whirled it through the air. A 
streak of what looked like molten silver hung shining in the wand's 
wake. Momentarily shapeless, it writhed and then formed itself into a 
gleaming replica of a human hand, bright as moonlight, which soared 
downward and fixed itself upon Wormtail's bleeding wrist.

> Wormtail's sobbing stopped abruptly. His breathing harsh and 
ragged, he raised his head and stared in disbelief at the silver 
hand, now attached seamlessly to his arm, as though he were wearing a 
dazzling glove. He flexed the shining fingers, then, trembling, 
picked up a small twig on the ground and crushed it into powder.

> "My Lord," he whispered. "Master ... it is beautiful. . . thank 
you... thank you. ..."

> He scrambled forward on his knees and kissed the hem of Voldemort's 
robes.

> "May your loyalty never waver again, Wormtail," said Voldemort.

> "No, my Lord . . . never, my Lord . . ."

zgirnius:
But it did waver, it did! Just for a moment...and that was the end of 
Peter (DH, "Malfoy Manor"). A gift quite in the spirit of the murder 
of Severus Snape, if you ask me.

> prep0strus:
praising Barty, 

zgirnius:
Well, and why not? The man was fanatically loyal, and carried out his 
assignment to perfection! 

> prep0strus:
> appearing to forgive those who had forsaken him, 

zgirnius:
Yes, he chose to Crucio only one of them, 'pour encourager les 
autres'. Though he reserved the right to do as much to any of them, 
should they fail him again.

> prep0strus:
> even appearing to be willing to spare Lily


zgirnius:
What did it cost him? Nothing. When the annoying girl refused to 
stand aside, he zapped her. A pity, really, she could have been a 
lovely gift for Severus, very much in the spirit of the silver hand. 
What would he have done for Voldemort, to ensure her continued 
survival? (We know the answer, of course..."Anything.") 

Voldemort does not 'get' love, but he does 'get' that it is a 
wonderful lever to use on people. Look how he dealt with the Malfoys 
in HBP and DH...

> prep0strus:
>  So, Severus is responsible for Voldy targeting Harry at all, and 
him
> getting protection from Lily – two levels of his direct involvement
> with creating the child who could defeat Voldy.  Doesn't make me 
like
> Snape any better, but it's pretty interesting.)

zgirnius:
(No accounting for taste <bg>). Yup. Sev/Lily is "at the heart of it 
all".

> prep0strus: 
> 
to me, he seemed like a villain with a heart.  I was always
> interesting in voldy's compassion for his crew.  

zgirnius:
Yeah, we definitely see old Tom differently. Scary, scary man. 
*shudders*

> prep0strus:
> And, what's more, I think she liked the idea of Neville
> being the one who in effect both avenges Snape and also defeats that
> which overcame him, that it overpowered the logic in simply having
> Voldy AK Snape.)

zgirnius:
Umm - there were more pressing plot reasons why it could not be an 
AK! Dead men share no memories. But I definitely agree about Neville 
and Nagini.

> prep0strus:
> 
 and he dies not attempting to accomplish anything.  However, Snape
> doesn't die instantly – in fact, he's trying to staunch his blood, 
and
> then he manages to do a last deed by giving Harry his memories, 

zgirnius:
Well, not just *A* last deed, *THE* last deed. This was his role in 
Dumbledore's master plan, the thing he had to do without fail for the 
plan to work.

> prep0strus:
> Dobby, little Dobby, has the most traditional hero's death. 

zgirnius:
*sob*

> prep0strus: 
> And Peter, whose storyline also finished up very unsatisfactorily 
for
> me.  I wanted more than a slight twitch (which we have to assume was
> done for the right reasons – really, voldy wanted Potter himself, 
and
> would have been pissed if Peter had actually crushed his neck as
> well). 

zgirnius:
I think that Voldemort's little present detected that the reason 
was 'right'. If Peter had been thinking 'Oops, Master wants the boy 
alive', my feeling is that the hand would have gone along with the 
change of plans. But no, for a moment Peter remembered this was 
James' son, who saved him from the retribution of his erstwhile 
friends, and the hand did the rest.

> prep0strus:
> Not sure if I have a conclusion to this post.  I wanted to think it
> out in writing, with all of you.  But I think, for the most part, 
it's
> true that JKR shows us that the moment of death is fast, without
> meaning or drawn out sympathy.  It happens when characters don't
> expect it, and not at their most heroic moment or most sacrificial. 
> It just happens.

zgirnius:
Well, I am glad you wrote the post, I found it very interesting to 
think about your ideas (and your asides).

You ought perhaps add Harry's death to the list. While instant like 
most of them, it was definitely trying (and succeeding) to achieve 
something important. And because Harry went to it knowingly, we got 
lots of last words/thoughts before it, so it was totally the heroic 
sort of death you mention above.

Of course, then he didn't die after all. <g>