Dumbledore's trust (wasQuestion about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 171131

 Dana:
> Actually I was not trying to imply that McGonagall is therefore 
> wrong, what I meant is that it was never DD that said that his 
trust 
> in Snape was ironclad.  
> The way McGonagall expressed herself on how she perceived DD's 
trust 
> in Snape is her own assessment of DD's behaviour about that trust 
> issue. And although it is therefore not by definition that there 
> can't be anything more to DD's trust then we currently know. it is 
> definitely not proof that there was either. Which was actually the 
> point I was trying to make. 

Magpie:
Yes, I didn't get that the first time, but when I read your response 
I understood that was what you meant. I think we *do* know that 
there is more to Dumbledore's trust than what we know, not because 
of what McGonagall says but because of what Dumbledore says. He 
doesn't tell Harry why he trusts Snape, but he does tell him certain 
other things. The reason that Dumbledore trusts Snape, to me, seems 
explicitly unknown at this point. Whether it's ironclad, of course, 
remains to be seen.

Dana: 
> I asked myself this question, would DD say the same thing about 
the 
> other people working for him if it was constantly put into 
question? 
> Yes, he would and we see he did when Snape nagged to him about 
Lupin 
> in PoA. He did not want to hear another word about it. 
> The only reason DD constantly repeats his trust in Snape is 
because 
> people question Snape's trustworthiness over and over again.

Magpie:
I don't think Dumbledore lies about how much he trusts people just 
because he's nagged. Sure Dumbledore repeats his trust in Snape 
because people ask him, but he doesn't seem to be lying or just 
defending his own ego. He's perfectly candid about telling Harry to 
watch out for Slughorn.

Dana:
 This 
> does not have to mean that DD's trust in Snape is therefore 
somehow 
> more special then the trust he has for the other people working 
for 
> him and we actually do not see that DD gives Snape any kind of 
> special treatment at all. 

Magpie:
I don't think it's more special, but I take Dumbledore at his word 
that he believes he can trust him to the extent that he does--and 
therefore others should not worry about it.

Dana: 
> I myself never made Snape's trustworthiness dependent on DD's 
trust 
> in him. I never looked at it that way because no matter how much 
DD 
> trusts him, it does not make Snape more or less trustworthy. So 
> unless DD had something that he could blackmail Snape with, I'd 
say 
> that it doesn't really matter why DD trusted Snape because if 
Snape 
> does not honour that trust for whatever reason then it is still 
> Snape's decision to make and not DD's. 

Magpie:
I don't think you have to base your trust in Snape on Dumbledore's, 
but I do think you have to consider Dumbledore as a character and 
what he means. I think Dumbledore's trust in Snape is very important 
thematically. He's a successful example of a second chance. I think 
that the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape is ultimately important to 
the story because presumably when we hear it we can judge it for 
ourselves. And I suspect even if Dumbledore turned out to be wrong, 
the reason would be believable.

Dana:
JKR cleverly pulled the wool 
> over people's eyes with DD's continuous declaration of trust in 
> Severus Snape because trust in someone can never control the 
> behaviour of that person. DD could not keep Snape out of jail 
> because he was a former DE but DD could keep Snape out of jail 
> because Snape had been working for DD. We see that DD's influence 
> doesn't go that far when it comes to proving people innocent of 
what 
> they are accused of without any proof, DD could not do that for 
> Sirius. DD was Snape's proof not Snape's remorse. 

Magpie:
Hmmm...I don't think so, exactly. First, Dumbledore has never pulled 
the wool over Harry's eyes with his trust in Snape, so she has never 
entirely pulled the wool over the readers eyes either. There's no 
big revelation for Harry if Snape is evil--in fact, the whole thing 
is a dud because his big moment of revealing his evil, instead of 
playing as a big shock, left a lot of the audience unconvinced, 
while Harry himself would have expected nothing less. Since we've 
never been told why Dumbledore trusted Snape we never had any reason 
to believe it except Dumbledore's own character, which is why JKR 
has to be careful about making Dumbledore wrong there, because it 
will be hard to say he was tricked without saying DEs have better 
ideas about these things. It's not because Dumbledore can't ever be 
wrong--he was tricked plenty of times. But in this case it seems 
like she's set up trusting Snape as more central to what 
Dumbledore's about. 

Dana: 
> To me it is just opinion that DD never told why he trusted Snape 
> because I believe he did. I believe he trusted Snape because he 
> believed Snape's story of remorse. 

Magpie:
Dumbledore tries to tell Harry how he thinks Snape had great 
remorse, blah blah blah. Harry jeers at him and won't listen. He 
keeps interrupting. Dumbledore says, "Harry....Please listen to me." 
And later he says, "Please let me finish." But Harry continues 
interrupting. Dumbledore is trying to tell him all this stuff and 
it's Harry who won't listen.

But then, Harry says, "Professor...how can you be *sure* Snape's on 
our side?"

And then "Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though 
he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he 
said, "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely."

Dumbledore *wanted* to tell Harry the story of Snape's remorse and 
Harry didn't want to hear it. But when Harry asks why he trusts him, 
Dumbledore clams up.

Dana:
He believed that because Snape 
> declared that it was the biggest regret of his life and that he 
made 
> a terrible mistake, that Snape deserved a second chance and DD 
gave 
> it to him. DD gave Snape a second chance and wiped his DE record 
> clean because Snape could not be implicated in any other type of 
DE 
> activity other then his spying on DD. As DD declared in GoF, Snape 
> is now no more a DE then I am. DD did not accept people 
questioning 
> Snape because of his past because second chances mean that you end 
> the past and start anew. That is why he did not want to hear 
> anything about it, just like he did not want to hear about Snape 
> questioning Lupin's trustworthiness because of what happened in 
the 
> past.

Magpie:
So Bellatrix Lestrange was right, as are the other DEs with their 
cynical, small-hearted DE view of life--that's validated at every 
turn in this version. Sure Dumbledore gets a pat on the head and one 
day Snape will realize the great thing Dumbledore was trying to give 
him--but of course he didn't take it, because Snape's a bad guy who 
of course didn't change. Just like Draco can't have changed or 
understood anything about Dumbledore in the Tower. It still sounds 
like the difference is whether one actually has faith in what 
Dumbledore seems to really be trying to say or one doesn't. I do--
not because I think Dumbledore's a nice guy, but because I think a 
lot of his judgements about this stuff (not all stuff) are sound and 
smarter than the DEs (who wouldn't recognize real remorse). In this 
version Dumbledore seems to be a much nicer person, but therefore 
too good for this world. Certainly too good for low-lifes like Snape 
and Draco, who validate Harry's knee-jerk reactions. This is where 
Harry comfortably is now, believing these guys are not worth 
sacrificing for, while defending Dumbledore for martyring himself to 
prove it. Harry will therefore improve on Dumbledore by knowing 
gestures like his are nice if you're going for sainthood, but not 
very practical.

Dana:
 It was not up to DD to proof Snape was truly remorseful, he 
> just gave Snape the chance to do so. Therefore I do not understand 
> DD must be a fool if Snape turns out to be untrustworthy. If you 
> give someone your trust and a chance to make wrongs right and that 
> person messes it up or never had the intention to live up to it, 
> then to me that says more about that person then about the person 
> who gave the second chance. It takes great courage to give your 
> trust to someone that once made the wrong choices but DD was not 
> afraid to give it anyway. 

Magpie:
It's stated by the DEs why it makes him a fool. He's tricked by 
Snape putting on an act of remorse. Snape, of all people, whose 
hatred and anger is easily seen by an 11-year-old boy. Dumbledore 
does not just give Snape his trust and allow him to prove him right 
or wrong. He bases strategy on his trust in Snape and tells other 
people to trust him and rely on him, and although he never tells 
them why he gives the impression of having a good reason. Dumbledore 
is doing more than just giving Snape a chance to prove remorseful--
and if he's giving him the chance to prove he's really remorseful it 
suggests he doesn't yet believe it himself.

Dana: 
> To see if Snape was really trustworthy then one should look at 
Snape 
> for answers to these questions and not to the reasons for DD's 
trust 
> in Snape. And if you do that then you will see that Snape betrayed 
> that trust several times by lying and these lies are directly 
linked 
> to the faith of people's lives and therefore to me I do not 
believe 
> that Snape was truly remorseful about what he had done but that he 
> did everything in his power to get from under that pesky life-debt 
> he owed James. 

Magpie:
But the two things are linked together--Dumbledore's reasons for 
trusting Snape and Snape himself. We don't yet understand everything 
that went on with Snape and who Snape is so of course we need that 
information. And Dumbledore is one of the few people who knew about 
the Life Debt. Would he really not recognize that this was a reason 
for Snape to feel remorseful or do the right thing? That's like 
being impressed at someone telling the truth even though it hurts 
their own case when you know they're under Veritaserum.

> Dana:
> Well to me the bathroom scene where Draco is crying that he can't 
do 
> it and the need for the cabinet to be fixed is to me and 
indication 
> that bringing DEs into the castle was part of Draco's orders. Also 
> Draco specifically states that he was supposed to wait on the 
tower 
> and although I understand that did can be interpreted as a plan 
> Draco himself concocted, I red it as Draco having given the 
> assignment to wait on the tower till the other DEs had set the 
trap 
> for DD. Also Draco specifically stating to DD that he did not 
invite 
> Fenrir seems to me that he actually did not have any choice in the 
> matter at all. 

Magpie:
No, it's not part of his orders. If it were part of his orders he 
wouldn't send poison or a cursed necklace instead when he can't fix 
it quickly. Draco is crying that he "can't do it" because the 
Cabinet is the one method he himself has set all his sights on--if 
he wanted to, he could have tried another method again like he did 
before. It's entirely Draco's plan to open the doorway to Hogwarts. 
That doesn't mean he's entirely in charge of the DEs when they get 
there--he's explicitly not. The DEs can help come up with a plan for 
how best for Draco to be waiting for DD without Draco being ordered 
to bring the Death Eaters. He proves that he isn't ordered to kill 
Dumbledore via the Cabinets when he sends the mead and the necklace 
instead. If Dumbledore had died either of those ways he wouldn't 
have had to fix the Cabinets at all. The Cabinets are entirely 
Draco's idea--that they bring in things beyond his control is what 
one would expect with Death Eaters. Draco's orders are to kill 
Dumbledore, period. (Which is also why Snape doesn't have to help 
him with them or fix them either.)

Dana:
> 
> Also I do not see Draco giving up as a true conscious choice he 
made 
> but merely something he could not make himself do and gave up. To 
me 
> Draco proved he was not capable of murder and not that he chose to 
> spare DD's life. To me there is a difference. Draco did not make a 
> choice that he would spare DD's life at the coast of his own. He 
did 
> not sacrifice himself so DD could live. Although I am truly glad 
> that Draco could not kill DD, he did not do some type of heroic 
deed 
> on the tower. 


Magpie:
It is a true conscious choice when Draco starts to lower his wand. 
JKR even has him verbally go over what he's giving up before he does 
it. He knows what he's doing. That's the one time Draco is going to 
make a true choice--though it's taken away. (Even Harry remembers it 
later.)

And what's the important difference between Draco realizing he's can 
can't murder and sparing DD's life? What's keeping him from pointing 
a wand at Dumbledore and saying two words that he must give up? What 
keeps Harry from killing Sirius in PoA? Because I'd suggest the two 
things are probably similar and are both positive things.

I did not imply that Draco did any kind of heroic deed on the tower. 
I said Draco's not killing Dumbledore meant his own death and he 
knew it. He was not declaring his intention to sacrifice himself, 
no, but he was also not crossing the line into taking action to save 
himself. (I'd say he was quite literally living out his name there--
bad faith--and we'll see if in the next book this experience makes 
him able to make a true choice later.) 

It turns out it's not in his nature to always choose to save his own 
skin. In fact, it hasn't been throughout the book when he doesn't go 
to Snape for help. Draco's not a hero in HBP, but other things 
motivate him more than just saving his own skin. Unlike Peter, who 
is motivated more by that.

ana:
He was to cowardly to take someone's life and it was 
> not him deciding that he would not kill DD even though he could if 
> he wanted too. He couldn't, even though there was probably nothing 
> in the world that he wished at that moment then DD to just drop 
> death and get it over with. 

Magpie:
Not killing a defenseless old man because a scary monster man tells 
you too is "cowardly" when Draco does it? I don't agree at all with 
your speculation that Draco wanted DD to drop dead. I actually like 
Draco's story in HBP. I think it goes to the heart of what 
Dumbledore is about and is a great story about a not admirable, 
previously weak kid learning the reality of death--so I don't 
dismiss it at every turn with "Draco's just a big coward either 
way." 

That, in fact, sounds like the interpretation Draco himself would 
have had before he grew up in HBP and killing was just something any 
tough guy did. He tried it out by distant means, and even found 
himself almost dying himself (mortality becoming more real being the 
first step to throwing off "bad faith")so that by the end of the 
year he's not able to even go through the motions like he could at 
the beginning of the year.

I don't think Draco wanted Dumbledore to die *at all* at the end of 
HBP. He does not just go back to his old self when the DEs arrived 
and side with them and deny the connection he just made with 
Dumbledore because they were stronger. His eyes are on Dumbledore 
throughout the scene once they arrive, and his last line in canon is 
to agree with Dumbledore that he did not intentionally bring Fenrir 
into the castle. (I think that's possibly the first Draco's ever 
made that kind of confession about his actions as that line about 
Fenrir.) Draco hasn't become strong by the end of HBP, but I think 
he's figuring out what true strength is--and on the Tower it's 
Dumbledore, not the DEs. I think Dumbledore won him over--and he did 
it by understanding Draco, not being suckered or wanting to see the 
good in him.


Dana:
> If Draco would have had the courage to save his own skin then he 
> would have but the essence of Draco's story is that he was not as 
> tuff as he presented himself to be and that talking about doing 
> things is a lot easier then having to actually do it.  

Magpie:
So you basically get to have it both ways--Draco is condemned as a 
murderer but also condemned as not being able to murder. Even if he 
didn't choose to save his own skin he chose to save his own skin, 
because he wanted to kill Dumbledore but couldn't try. 

Nope, not buying it. I'm with Dumbledore. Draco not being a killer 
does not make him a coward, but it does say something about his 
character, and while he's not a hero on the Tower, he's stronger 
than he was when he got up there, and stronger than he was when he 
was talking big at the start of the year. And I look to that 
Dumbledore/Draco scene for some clues about Snape's own defection 
actually. 

  
 Dana:
> Although I agree that Peter made a weak attempt he nevertheless 
did 
> something Snape was not willing to do for Draco. 
> Just because you do not see Snape jump through hoops to safe James 
> life doesn't mean that Snape would not think about wanting to get 
> rid of that debt before it could hurt him indefinitely. 

Magpie:
Sure, we know he wants to get rid of it. I'm not convinced that 
Snape was not doing as much for Draco as Peter did for Harry--Peter 
vaguely suggests an alternate plan (and I agree it's possibly due to 
his being indebted to Harry) and then backs down immediately. Snape 
linked his life to Draco's. We don't know if he didn't suggest any 
alternatives to Voldemort at any time, since we didn't see Voldemort 
telling Snape about the plan to get Draco killed,and Snape would 
hardly tell Narcissa and Bellatrix about it if he did. If his 
suggestion was as weak as Peter's it wouldn't show any results. 

Dana:
> What if LV had ordered Snape to tag along with him the night he 
went 
> to GH then Snape would have been forced to act and it would have 
> meant he would have had to die for James because LV would not 
accept 
> an excuse "sorry master you can't kill this man today because I 
owe 
> this man a debt." Well let me help you get rid of it Severus, you 
> will have not to worry about it any longer" and a flash over green 
> light is all it would have taken. > 
> So Snape would have had to worry about what the debt could mean to 
> his own safety because he does not want to have to give up his own 
> life for someone he hated with all his might. 
> 

Magpie:
Maybe Snape would have just killed James and lived with the Life 
Debt, which is what he's doing now, fairly successfully. (Proving 
that Snape isn't too "cowardly" to kill James to save his own skin, 
at least.)

 
> 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. 
> <snip>
> 
> Dana:
> I think the betrayal of Snape will be emotional and interesting 
and 
> clear. That Snape could betray a man that stood out for him that 
> accepted him for who he was, instead of what he pretended to be. 
> That took Snape for Snape with all his flaws and all his 
misfortunes 
> and gave him a chance to be all he could be as a human being. 
Snape 
> never saw this but he will. 

Magpie:
If that's what he did he's already done it and all that's left is 
the explanation--which I hope will be good enough to make up for us 
not all getting it the first time. 

Unfortunately, I'm still seeing Pollyanna!Dumbledore here. He 
offered Snape all this love even with all his flaws and gave him a 
chance to be all he could be, and Snape betrayed him...which isn't 
too surprising. No more surprising than Hagrid adopting a baby 
dragon and getting his house burned down for his trouble.  
Dumbledore still comes across as sentimental in ways I don't think 
it's IC for him to be. Yes, Dumbledore seems to want to give people 
the chance to be the best he can be, but this usually goes along 
with understanding the person. I think Dumbledore would have given 
this Snape the chance he gave young Tom Riddle--one that had little 
to do with trusting him. 

Dana:
> You never no what you lost until it is gone, will be the phrase 
most 
> fitting for Snape. The life-debt that Snape experienced as the 
most 
> awful thing in his life was actually the best thing that ever 
> happened to him if he only had recognized it as such. When the 
debt 
> made him go to DD (in my opinion) and DD reached out to him, Snape 
> should have understood the gesture DD was making but he did not he 
> was to busy trying to avoid the consequences of what a debt could 
> mean to him personally. That it could possibly mean the end of 
him. 
> Snape, too hung up for being recognized for his abilities instead 
of 
> the human being Severus Snape that also lived in that head 
> somewhere,  did not see that DD tried to give that person a 
chance. 

Magpie:
And Dumbledore doesn't realize that the person to whom he's offering 
his trust, and relying on to keep his people safe, can't even 
comprehend the gesture or understand he's being given a chance? That 
doesn't sound like Dumbledore to me. He's a little more wiley than 
that. 

Dana:
> I believe Snape meant what he said in Spinner's End that he 
> considered DD a fool for believing his story of remorse because I 
> truly believe Snape could never see that his story of remorse had 
> nothing to do with it. DD trusted Snape's willingness to chance 
his 
> life to do what is right instead of what is easy. Changing once 
life 
> is the hardest thing to do and most people never get the hang of 
it 
> and make many mistakes in the process.

Magpie:
Snape says that Dumbledore was suckered by his tale of remorse. Are 
you now saying that although you earlier said that Snape's remorse 
was what Dumbledore claimed was the reason for his trust, Dumbledore 
wasn't suckered by it, he was rather making a gesture and extending 
his trust and the trust of his people on faith to give Snape a 
second chance even though Snape could never take it?

Dana:
 The most precious thing a 
> person can receive when he has done something wrong, is someone 
> trusts and commitment so you can have a new beginning so you can 
> make a fresh start. Therefore it doesn't matter why DD trusted 
Snape 
> because Snape betrayed that trust, the trust of the only man that 
> believed in Severus Snape completely. 

Magpie:
I think for many of us it does matter because we know Dumbledore's 
character and he doesn't just hand out second chances of this type. 
He's shrewd and calculating and has an irritating habit of 
explaining peoples' own motives to them because he understands them 
better than they do.

Dana: 
> And that will be the most emotional thing you ever red when 
Severus 
> Snape suddenly realises what DD really did for him.

Magpie:
I wonder, after all this time, exactly what would make the scales 
suddenly fall from Snape's eyes. If he didn't get it when Dumbledore 
actually gave him the second chance, why would he suddenly now 
realize that Dumbledore was offering him a second chance now that 
Dumbledore's dead? Snape's beginning to sound like the grinch here, 
suddenly finding his heart growing two sizes bigger. If only he 
hadn't been such a gloomy gus and made friends they would have 
fought for him...more than they already did fight for him. (I assume 
by friends here we mean the right kind of friends, of course.)

> Dana:
> 
> I don't think that I expressed myself clearly because I meant it 
the 
> other way around. DD trusted Snape BECAUSE Snape hated James but 
did 
> the right thing regardless. 

Magpie:
Because of the Life Debt, which Dumbledore knows about. Yet he 
doesn't seem to trust Peter due to his Life Debt or have any 
illusions that it's going to make him "do the right thing." He 
thinks it might make him do something that helps their side, but it 
doesn't make him trustworthy. It just undercuts his ability to be as 
untrustworthy as he could be--which is exactly what's going on with 
Snape in this scenario.

Dana:
DD made a mistake because Severus 
> Snape never forgives people that challenge him in life and he will 
> get back at them and he'll do it without ever getting his own 
hands 
> dirty. Well at least until HBP where he made a mistake of 
committing 
> himself to a vow with no other choice then to do it himself if 
Draco 
> fails. 

Magpie:
Strange thing to do, actually, if you're trying not to get your 
hands dirty.

Dana:
> 
> DD was not a fool to believe that a person like Snape deserved a 
> chance to make something of his life after he made some mistakes 
but 
> Snape was the fool who did not recognize what was given to him. 
Yes, 
> DD paid for his mistake with his life but it is Snape who will 
have 
> to live with the consequences. (Yes, he'll live through book 7).

Magpie:
I think he was a fool to believe Snape deserved the trust he was 
given, and reckless to tell others to trust him. He knows Snape owes 
James a Life Debt, and that the Life Debt would compel him to want 
to save James' life. Is it really a shock that Snape was never 
really on his side? And is there really any reason to believe that a 
Snape who never changed in all those years will suddenly, after he's 
knocked Dumbledore off, suddenly get it? What would make him do that?

-m