Thoughts Regarding Snape

[esmith222002]

No: HPFGUIDX 171121

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" <juli17 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> >
> > 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?
> 

<SNIP>

Brothergib;
IMO, a very accurate summary of the most likely explanation for the 
chain of events on the tower. And just to add my own thoughts, this 
would also place Snape in the ideal position to hunt and destroy 
Horcruxes. He now has LV's complete faith.

Just a couple of additional questions that I have never answered 
completely to my own satisfaction;
1. Why make the UV? Snape is pledging his life that he will kill DD 
to protect Draco. OK, the evidence is there that DD was already 
mortally wounded. But surely DD & Snape could not forsee that 
Narcissa would make such a request. That suggests that Snape made a 
judgement call at the time - but this doesn't really tally with DD's 
request on the tower i.e. if Snape did not want to AK DD, but acted 
on DD's orders, then why would he voluntarily make the UV without 
checking with DD first (hope that makes sense)? 
2. Slightly off the point - Why did DD offer Snape a job in the first 
place? It's clear that DD was aware Snape was a DE. Snape didn't 
change sides (if he did at all) until after his recruitment (probably 
when Harry was identified as the threat). I don't believe that DD 
could forsee Snape's change in allegiance - so why place a DE within 
Hogwarts, where he could spy, influence the children etc. Is it 
simply the case that DD knew he could 'turn' Snape?

Brothergib