[HPforGrownups] Re: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 171100

Magpie:
> Actually, I've never heard anyone use McGonagall's statement as 
> proof there's more to DD's trust in Snape since, as you say, she 
> never suggests she knows what the reason was. They use Dumbledore's 
> own statements that he "trusts Snape completely" and point out that 
> he has never shared *why* he trusts him completely. At one point he 
> looks like he's going to, but he doesn't. It's an open question. 
> Whether his reason is "ironclad" or not there's no way to know, 
> because we don't know what the reason is.
<snip>

Dana:
Then I suggest you search the list on the word ironclad and see what 
comes up but just too save you the trouble, here are just a handful 
of those the search came up with. 
(Just picked the first few the search came up)

Magpie:
Wow! Looks like I was totally wrong. When I tried to think about arguments
on the list, I always thought it was Dumbledore's own behavior that made
people believe that there was more to his trust in Harry. I see here you're
right that people do refer to McGonagall's line a lot in talking about it.
Though I don't think they're wrong--in many of these quotes it seems like
people are using "ironclad reason" as shorthand for the unknown reason we
see in scenes with Dumbledore.  He *has* hinted that he has some reason for
trusting Snape that he has not shared--though whether it's ironclad or not
we don't know. McGonagall's line references that which we ourselves have
seen. She agrees that he's hinted at having some mysterious reason for
trusting Snape.

So my bad for not remembering that this was used as proof--and as far as it
goes, I think it holds up. That is, McGonagall's line doesn't prove
Dumbledore's reason was really ironclad, but I disagree with what you also
seem to be saying, which is that because Dumbledore only "hinted" to McG
that he has a good reason and didn't actually say it, she's wrong to think
it. That seems too much like lying on Dumbledore's part and also on JKR's
for putting that line into the mouth of a trustworthy character. McGonagall
is the kind of character who knows when she's being hinted to, and having
seen Dumbledore hint myself I agree with what she's getting. He does have
some reason for trusting Snape he has never shared with us or with her. It
can't be something we know already, because he won't tell us.


Dana:
Draco tried to have DD killed by letting someone else bring him 
deathly objects and bringing DEs into the castle was not Draco's 
choice but he was ordered to get them in. So Draco's direct 
confrontation with DD was not a way Draco himself wanted to deal with 
it and he actually couldn't do it in this way while he had no problem 
sending the objects to DD. If DD had died from them then it would 
have been enough for Draco, he never wanted to have a face to face 
with DD. And to me his use of Madam Rosemerta clearly indicates to me 
that Draco thought about himself first as he did not want to be 
implicated in these attempts. 

Magpie:
I was referring to Draco's decision once the DEs were there (which was his
first choice for killing DD, implying a direct confrontation--he wasn't
ordered to bring DEs into the castle, he was ordered to kill DD). Once they
are there the way for him to save his own skin would be to kill Dumbledore,
thus removing the immediate threat of punishment from LV and the DEs. He
couldn't do that, even though the result of that was most likely Draco
being killed himself. I do agree with your points on Gryffindors preferring
direct confrontations to Slytherins seeming to prefer subterfuge. As it
happens Draco's behavior, despite the B-movie sneaky murder attempts,
doesn't quite follow those rules in this book, though I don't think that
overturns everything.

Magpie:
> Although Peter does not act to save Harry in GoF (despite being 
> indebted to him), and Snape does not owe a life debt to Harry. 
> Snape's living on perfectly well having not saved James. Dumbledore 
> starts to say he believes his remorse over finding out who the 
> Prophecy targeted (and while yes, we shouldn't turn our ethics on 
> and off depending on if we know the people, most all our characters 
> do it all the time) was what caused him to return...(to something, 
> someplace or some state of mind), but Dumbledore knows about the 
> Life Debt too. He explicitly hints about its power to Harry re: 
> Peter. So I don't think we can assume that Dumbledore would be 
> tricked into thinking Life Debt-itis was true remorse. His take on 
> Snape's feelings towards James are more complex, even knowing their 
> history and how life debts work.
<snip>

Dana:
Yes, Peter does, he tried to persuade LV to change his mind, even 
Snape, in Spinner's End, says he is not stupid enough to try.

Magpie:
That's a totally weak attempt, though, and it's months before Harry's in
any danger. When Harry is tied up and actually about to die Peter doesn't
act to save him. And Snape lives on fine after James' death. So it doesn't
seem like OFH!Snape has to worry about his Life Debt much at all. Also, it
seems like Peter's actually been very hidden about most of his attacks in
canon-he made that one open, it seems to me, because he needed it public
for his cover. I suspect most people probably have a mixture of things on
their record, even if Gryffindors seem to far prefer an open fight where
Slytherins prefer subterfuge.

Dana:
Another option and I think that is more likely is that you can't be 
the cause for someone's dead when you owe that person a debt. Snape 
would have been the cause for LV hunting the Potters and this would 
make him directly responsible for James's death but after he gave DD 
information and as a result they put the 

Magpie:
I'd think Snape would still be the cause of their death in a big way,
myself.

Dana:
DD knows about the debt and if it is as I suggest in the later option 
or a combination of the above then he at that time would not consider 
Snape's actions to be debt related because at that time LV was not 
hunting the Potters themselves yet. I believe that LV had not made 
his choice between the Potters and the Longbottoms when Snape went to 
DD and that Snape only knew at the time that it could involve the 
Potters when LV would make his final choice. 

Magpie:
I have to say, that would make for a really lame answer in canon. I think
Dumbledore's reason to trust Snape will be emotional and interesting and
clear, not something that requires any explanation about the ins and outs
of Life Debts and when they take effect and how to get around them by
splitting hairs. 

Dumbledore has a reason to trust Snape. Dumbledore knows about everything
Snape owes to James, and Snape's responsibility in the Potter's death. I
see no way the Life Debt can be Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape
given everything we've seen. I know less about magic than DD does, and the
Life Debt is obviously not able to prove anyone's loyalty even from where I
sit. 

Dana:
I totally agree that DD believed that Snape's feelings towards James 
were more complex and that he believed Snape truly had overcome these 
feelings because he suddenly realized that he what he had done. That 
he believed that Snape would always do the right thing because he was 
man enough to face is mistakes eventhough he hated the man it 
involved. DD misjudged Snape being far more calculated and 
sophisticated in shoving off responsibilities for his actions and 
that Snape would have never risked his own life to save James and he 
actually never did. 

Magpie:
When does DD ever claim that he's thought Snape got over any feelings for
James? Doesn't he say on at least two occasions that he hasn't, and even in
OotP say that he overestimated Snape's ability to get over those feelings
by giving him a much simpler task? I just don't think Dumbledore could ever
base his entire trust in Snape on anything related to his getting over his
hatred for James.

-m