Thoughts Regarding Snape

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 171111


>
> Dana wrote:
> Killing splits the soul (pg 465 UKed PB chapter "Horcruxes") that is
> what Slughorn stated and no where in canon, is it said that 
justified
> killing would not split the soul in the same way. It is not just
> murder that splits the soul, it is killing another human being.
> Sirius specifically stated that Barty's method of fighting the DEs
> with their own methods made him as bad as the DEs themselves. To
> Barty killing of a DE might have been justified and in any legal
> system in the world it might be but to DD it does not and therefore
> DD would never ask Snape to kill him and split his soul. DD would 
not
> sacrifice just his own life but Snape's soul which is a violation; 
it
> is against nature (same page as previous quote)
> 
> vmonte;
> I agree with everything you've said. I've also said the same things 
> time and again. 
> 
> 
> I've said this before, but here I go again:
> 
> I can't follow the logic of those that say that Dumbldore was 
asking 
> Snape to murder him.
> 
> So, the idea is that Dumbledore is trying to save Draco's soul and
> when he sees Snape he pleads with him via legimens/occlumens
> (whichever applies) to strike him down for Draco's sake?
> 
> Why not just have Snape grab Draco by the scruff of his collar and
> drag his ass into hiding instead. Then get his mother and ship them
> off together. Who cares what Draco says--I mean your still keeping
> him from doing something that is wrong--right?
> 
> So, instead, Dumbledore says: "I'm dying anyway, the best thing for
> you to do would be to kill me Snape---pleeeeease. I realize that 
I've
> not given you the job of DADA because I was afraid that you might go
> back to the dark side (and start killing again) but you know what?
> Forget what I said. JUST DO IT---PLEEEEASE."


Julie:
And I guess I don't understand how anyone can't follow the
logic. NOTE: I'm NOT saying you have to agree with the theory,
just that the logic isn't difficult. Discerning whether one
believes Snape or Dumbledore would act according to this logic
is another matter.

The logic according to the "Dumbledore asked Snape to deliver
the final blow" theory (not the same as Dumbledore asking Snape
to murder him, as while murder is always killing, killing is NOT
always murder):

1. Dumbledore is dying from the Ring curse. Whether he lasts a
few months or a year or more, he IS dying, and sooner rather than 
later.

2. Snape "stoppered" death (believed by some) or in some other
manner halted the progression of the Ring curse, and this is what
is buying Dumbledore time, albeit limited time.

2. The potion Harry forced down Dumbledore's throat affected
the "remission" status of the Ring curse, whether it simply
revived the curse's effects or removed the "stopper" Snape had
put on the curse.

3. Before he saw the Dark Mark in the sky, Dumbledore demanded
Harry fetch Severus Snape, NOT Madame Pomphrey, no one BUT 
Severus Snape, perhaps because there was still time for Snape
to undo or halt the effects of the Cave potion.

4. By the time Dumbledore got to the Tower and proceeded to
begin persuading Draco against killing him, he was experiencing
increasingly debilitating effects of the Cave potion and/or the
reactivated Ring curse. He continued to lose strength as Draco
hesitated to carry out his action.

5 When Snape arrived at the Tower, Dumbledore said "Severus"
in the pleading tone that so unnerved Harry *before* he even
had eye contact with Snape, not because he had just come to
a belated and totally unprompted realization that Snape was
not trustworthy, but because he already knew it was too late
to avoid his own death.

6. Dumbledore says "Severus" and then "Severus, please..." 
because he wants Snape to deliver the fatal blow (or appear
to deliver the fatal blow, as it is debateable whether the
AK killed him given the fresh blood when he is discovered at
the bottom of the Tower later). Why, you ask?

7. Because Dumbledore is now dying at an accelerated rate,
he believes (and has said) that Snape can be of more use
to Harry than Dumbledore now can. If in fact there is no way 
Dumbledore can survive, or if upon surviving he knows he would
be a mere shadow of himself (note his powers were so greatly 
diminished HE apparently couldn't save himself, and didn't 
bother to call Fawkes to save him either), then it's certainly
a logical conclusion that an alive Snape, a DDM!Snape, his
status now secured in the enemy camp, can give Harry and the
Order far greater aid than Dumbledore can. 

8. Dumbledore also is secure in the knowledge that Draco and
Harry will be safe, as well as the rest of the students at 
Hogwarts, as he knows DDM!Snape will see to it that the Death
Eaters are removed post-haste.

9. What's not to like? Dumbledore is dying anyway, and Snape
remaining alive means Harry and Draco remain alive and safe.
The alternative is to take the chance that Snape can defeat
the assembled Death Eaters while keeping Draco out of the
fight, all before the Unbreakable Vow kicks in, and *still*
have time to save Dumbledore's rapidly fading life (if it is
even remotely saveable) while keeping Harry in check. In
Dumbledore's book that would be a huge risk, especially if
he knows more than we do, such as that the UV will kick in
before Snape can act in direct opposition to it, or that 
nothing will save his (Dumbledore's) life at this point.

10. Okay, there IS one thing not to like. It's a horrible 
thing to ask of Snape. Thus the pleading. Killing splits the
soul. The problem is, this concept remains a bit vague. Is it
all killing, or just murder that splits the soul? Do different
kinds of killing split the soul differently, i.e., justified
killing for a good cause splits it in a smaller or less 
permanent way than cold-blooded murder? Additionally, is 
Snape's soul already split from his DE activities? If so, will
it split *more* if he kills again? And finally, *did* Snape
kill Dumbledore with the AK, or did he throw some other,
nonverbal spell that knocked Dumbledore off the Tower still
alive, and Dumbledore subsequently expired from the Ring 
curse/Cave potion once on the ground?

As you see, there are so many uncertainties, so many variables
that JKR can pin down in a dozen different ways to send the
story where she chooses (has already chosen!), that we are all
able to put those variables together in different but equally
valid ways as far as potentially logical outcomes. So there
is almost NO theory about what happened on the Tower that we
can really call impossible. Or illogical. 

vmonte:
> Doesn't it make more sense that Snape was forced to kill Dumbledore
> because he made a pact with Narcissa to finish the mission Voldemort
> set for Draco (since Draco wasn't able to do it). 
> 
> If Snape did not kill Dumbledore, Snape would die, no? Wasn't that 
> the pact? It seems more in character to me that Snape felt he had 
to 
> kill Dumbledore because there was no way he was going to die 
because 
> of Draco's failure. Snape evens shoves Draco aside as he walks up 
to 
> kill Dumbledore. He shows no tender compassion for Draco's struggle.
> 
> Snape is not the kind of guy that would die for anyone---JMO.
> 
> When he sees that Draco cannot kill, the only thing he can do is 
> kill Dumbledore, grab Draco, and run the hell out of there
> before anyone can stop him.

Julie:
See, your theory is valid. It *could* have happened that way, and
maybe the variables will fall into place so that it did happen
exactly that way. But the DDM!Snape theory is just as valid *if*
the variable fall into place in the way I outlined above. 

vmonte: 
> And what about Harry? A few months ago he watched Sirius die. And 
> now he has to helplessly watch Dumbledore get murdered? Do you 
> really think that Dumbledore would do that to Harry? That would be 
> horribly cruel. Isn't Harry traumatized enough? 

Julie:
Life sucks sometimes. Dumbledore was 150 years old and he wasn't
going to last forever. We certainly have plenty of canon that
Dumbledore will do what is necessary to bring about Voldemort's
defeat. If he's dying anyway, there's no way he can spare Harry
that loss. It's no doubt unfortunate that events fell into 
place at a moment when Dumbledore had little choice but to let
Harry observe (as opposed to letting him interfere, or he would
have had no reason to freeze a boy who'd already fought Death
Eaters and Voldemort more than once). It's not about being 
cruel, it's about events tying your hands. Whatever Dumbledore
says, you can't always choose the course your life takes ;-)

vmonte:
> There are clues to Snape's personality. He is very clever. He has 
> the ability to talk himself out of anything. He has both Voldemort 
> and Dumbledore believing that he is on their side.

Julie:
Agreed on points one and three. I'm not sure about two, as I
don't know when Snape has talked himself out of doing something
he didn't want to do. (Though certainly that would make him no
different than the rest of humanity!)

vmonte:
> According to JKR it takes a certain sort of person to become a DE: 
> _ It takes someone who is filled with hatred
> - Enjoys inflicting pain on those that are weak or helpless
> - Someone who can easily deny/suppress their emotions 
> - Someone who is cruel
> - Can murder others...

Julie:
I don't know about enjoying inflicting pain, but certainly
a person choosing to become a DE would have to be able to
watch the pain of others without balking or interfering. Which
is all part of the denying and suppressing of emotions I guess.

Your points don't address why one QUITS being a DE. Apparently
Regulus decided he wasn't the right DE material (presumably
his conscience got the better of him once he realized the full
meaning of being a DE), and at some point a DDM!Snape made that
call also. They either went in fooling themselves that they didn't
care about the suffering and murder of innocents, or once they
experienced this suffering they *changed* their minds. I.e.,
they repented.

vmonte:
> - Snape also mistreats those he feels are beneath him
> - He has delusions of grandeur
> - He changes his name like Tom Riddle and creates a new persona for
> himself--he reinvents himself: 'TA DAH I'm the Half-Blood-Prince!'
> (Is that his Super Villain name?)
> - He is obsessed with the dark arts--he even invents more killing
> curses (nice hobby)
> - He is rather sadistic and enjoys manipulating people with his 
> words (He reminds me of Iago)
> - He holds grudges (the grudges are even against the children of the
> people he hates)
> - He is emotionally stunted
> - He has probably killed several (many?) people since his previous 
> profession was being a DE
> - And he is so scary when he kills Dumbledore that even the baby 
> eating werewolf steps away from him in fear---LOL!

Julie:
I don't think we know enough about the inner workings of 
Snape's mind to know if he has delusions of grandeur (he is
correct about his prodigious talents at Potions and DADA--no
false modesty there, but no delusions either). We also don't
know if he has killed several people since he was a DE, since
we only see the one instance (Dumbledore) and even that 
instance has some reasonable room for doubt. His other 
"persona" was something he adopted as a teenager, not something
we have any evidence he considers relevant as an adult (other
than to let Harry know the spells in the Potions book were his).

And however mean, emotionally stunted, and grudge-holding
Snape is, that still doesn't preclude that him having a 
moral code that pits him against torture, murder, or yes,
even prejudicial treatment of Muggle-borns. 

My main point is that there is still plenty of wiggle room 
when it comes to pinning down Snape's character. There are 
theories from ESE! to DDM! to everything inbetween which are 
all perfectly logical given the sparse facts we have in our
possession right now (and I mean facts that *cannot* change, not
suppositions like "Dumbledore was killed by an AK" that *do*
have to potential to change with new information).


Julie, hoping I made sense