Snape and Dumbledore on the Tower: A Defense of Snape

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 165352

Carol:
> 
> > I'm assuming that Dumbledore knows
> > all about the UV based on his comment
> > to Harry after Harry tells him about
> > the overheard conversation between
> > Snape and Draco. 

Eggplant: 
> You're half right. Dumbledore did indeed believe that Snape told 
Draco
> that he had taken an unbreakable vow, but it's clear he didn't 
really
> think Snape had done it. I can't think of any other interpretation
> given the dialogue below:
> 
> Draco said to Dumbledore "He [Snape] hasn't been doing your 
orders, he
> promised my  mother_"
> Dumbledore replied "Of course that is what he would tell you 
Draco, 
> but_" 
> 
> Unlike Dumbledore we readers know Snape didn't just say he'd made 
the
> vow, he really had. And there is no "but" about it.

Magpie:
That doesn't mean Dumbledore thinks Snape didn't really take the 
vow. Draco is saying, "Snape hasn't been doing your orders, he 
promised my mother..."

And Dumbledore could easily be replying, "Of course that's what he 
would tell you, that he is protecting you for your mother's sake, 
but in fact I want you protected too." Dumbledore knows Draco's 
trying to kill him, he's heard that Snape has made an Unbreakable 
Vow. What Dumbledore is saying here in no way means he *must* think 
Snape only told Draco about the Vow and didn't really take it. After 
all, who says Draco knows about the Vow just because Snape told him? 
Bellatrix and Narcissa were there too. Dumbledore could absolutely 
know that the Vow was real and still being correcting Draco's 
impression that Snape's not working for Dumbledore but really 
working for Voldemort. Those are the two stories we're being 
presented with--either Draco's right or Dumbledore is.

Eggplant:
> As I said before if JKR wants a good Snape she's going to have to 
find
> a HUGE reason for him making that vow, an your reason is way way 
too
> puny. Bellatrix is not Snape's boss, if Voldemort didn't demand 
that
> he make that vow she certainly can't. The only way I can think of 
to
> make it work is that Snape was only vowing to do what he had every
> intention of doing anyway, to help Draco and kill Dumbledore if 
Draco
> failed to do so. But that is incompatible with a good Snape. If JKR
> wants a good Snape she's going to have to work very hard for it,
> harder than any of us has.

Magpie
I think Snape agreeing to do it because he was going to do it anyway 
is incompatable with lots of Snapes too, because why on earth does 
ESE!Snape want to put his life on the line for anyone? It's not the 
killing Dumbledore that's a problem with him, it's the "die if you 
don't" that is.

But regardless, you say "if JKR wants a good Snape she's going to 
have to work very hard for it" almost as if that's a *bad* thing. I 
thought the point of HBP was to set up this impossible looking 
situation where Snape's agreeing to kill Dumbledore and later goes 
through with it. I imagine if Snape is DDM JKR can't *wait* to give 
us her huge reason he took the vow (and I agree it's not, imo, going 
to have anything to do with Snape having to go through with it for 
Bellatrix or anyone like that).

Carol: 
> > It's only the third provision, which he 
> > clearly didn't anticipate given the twitch,
> > that presents a problem.

Eggplant: 
> At one stroke that literary device would turn a brilliant enigma, 
one
> of the most interesting characters in the books, into a laughing
> stock. Only a jackass would vow to do things when he didn't even 
know
> what he was vowing to do. 

Magpie:
I agree--which is why I'm holding out for JKR to pull that huge 
reason out of her sleeve, one that will encompass everything Snape's 
done at once. No idea how she'll do it, but that's what I'm 
expecting.

Carol: 
> > the UV in itslef does not prove that
> > he's not Dumbledore's man.

Eggplant: 
> I think it does prove it, unless someone (like JKR) can come up 
with a
> sensible reason a good Snape would make that crazy vow. I'm not 
saying
> such a reason can't exist, maybe we'll learn of it on July 21, but 
I
> haven't heard it yet.

Magpie:
Me neither--and I honestly don't expect to hear it until July 21st. 
I think Snape is intentionally set up to look bad in this scene, and 
I think he's doing everything he appears to do, taking a vow to kill 
Dumbledore or die and then following through on it. I don't expect 
any explanations about how he didn't really make that vow, or made 
it by accident, or had to make it. 

Carol:
> 
> > We're seeing the look of hatred and
> > revulsion from Harry's pov 

Eggplant: 
> No, the book said it looked like Snape was full of hate not that 
Harry
> thought he did.

Magpie:
The narrator is giving us Harry's pov throughout the scene. I think 
we're definitely in third-person limited there. Snape looking like 
he's full of hatred and revulsion doesn't tell us what the hatred 
and revulsion is for. (If he wants to kill Dumbledore he might not 
have shown revulsion at all, but satisfaction. I don't think Snape, 
if he was called upon to kill Sirius at the end of PoA, thinking he 
was the traitor, would look repulsed.)

Carol: 
> > I stated that they could indicate self-hatred

Magpie:
> 
> Yes, but I found your explanation less than convincing. The facial
> expressions one has when undergoing self-hatred are quite different
> than when one hates someone else. If you looked at Harry when he 
was
> forcing that potion down Dumbledore's throat do you think we would 
see
> hatred etched into the harsh lines of Harry's face? I don't think 
we
> would.

Magpie:
Sure we might. JKR loves showing us expressions that aren't 
completely explained from the outside until you know what's going 
on. Snape can hate what he's having to do. Harry is in a different 
situation in the cave, but I think the parallel is still 
significant, if not parallel.

Carol:
> 
> > If the AK is a cover for some other
> > spell, he didn't actually murder DD 

Eggplant:
> 
> It's perfectly acceptable for an author to try to mislead a reader,
> but she must play fair. We saw Snape point his wand at Dumbledore, 
we
> heard him utter the dreaded words, we saw green bolts shoot out of 
his
> wand, we saw them hit Dumbledore, we saw him die and fall off the
> tower. If that doesn't mean that Dumbledore is dead and Snape 
killed
> him with the AK then JKR has crossed the line from misleading her
> readers to being dishonest with them.

Magpie:
I agree with you there. I'm holding out for plain vanilla AK. What a 
shame if it was taken back.

Carol:
> 
> > If someone *must* kill Dumbledore, and
> > if it's the only way to save Draco's
> > life, better Snape than Draco. 

Eggplant:
> 
> I hope JKR doesn't pursue this, trading Dumbledore's life for slime
> ball Draco seems like a poor idea and a very poor plot element.

Magpie:
If DD was trading his life for Draco's--and I don't think that's 
literally what he's doing--it would go beyond trading one life for 
another. If anything Dumbledore's death is going to say something 
about his philosophy of life in general, imo. It's not, imo, a trade 
of victims. And I also think it will pay off far beyond Draco being 
alive. That, imo, will be important--I think if anything characters 
who insist on dismissing Draco as simply a slimeball will turn out 
to be the ones at a disadvantage (Voldemort among them).

Eggplant:
Perhaps during most of the last book it would seem that
> Snape haters like me were right after all, but then just seconds
> before his death Snape saves Harry's life. However nearly everybody
> thinks it was just a lucky fluke and they still think Snape was 
evil> and they're glad he's dead. The one exception is Harry Potter 
who for> various reasons now thinks Snape was good from day one, 
although he> can't convince anybody else of this, or thank Snape for 
it. 

Magpie:
Since Harry pretty much is the spokesman for Snape haters, that 
doesn't seem to naturally follow. Nobody else is invested in hating 
Snape or thinking he's evil.

-m