Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 170649

 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, the explanation that Snape just did not understand the prophecy 
> always amuses me a lot. Why, why would Snape think that Voldemort even 
> postpone hunting the prophecy couple? Did he ever show that he erm.... 
> postpones hunting after his enemies?
> 
> He tries **obsessively** to get the prophecy all year in OOP, does he 
> not?
> 

Pippin:
Voldemort's obsessions come and go -- the fact that he was
obsessed by the prophecy in OOP does not mean that he has
constantly been obsessed by them. Our glimpses into Voldemort's 
past didn't show any particular fascination with the subject. 

Young Snape would have been taught divination, if at all, by
Sybil Trelawney's predecessor, the one who left Dumbledore
thinking "it was against my inclination to allow the subject of
Divination to continue at all."  I don't imagine that Snape, who
likes everything to be precise, would be any fonder of such a 
wooly subject than Dumbledore or Hermione.  

Of course Snape knew his master would be deeply interested 
in anything that might affect the struggle with Dumbledore, 
but he might have supposed Voldemort would want to test
the prophecy rather than accept it unconditionally. That
is what Harry would have expected, after all, and Harry has,
we are told, more insight into Voldemort's psyche than
anyone.

If that's the case, then Snape's thoughts would be turned to 
how Voldemort could test the prediction rather than
what he would do if he accepted it as true. But even if
Snape gave it a thought, the outcome would have been
uncertain.  *If* Voldemort accepted the prophecy as 
true, *if* he could identify the person or creature "born 
as the seventh month dies", *if* Voldemort decided that 
"approaches" meant "is soon to be born", *then* an 
infant and its parents would be in mortal danger. 

But in any case, the people in mortal danger would be 
enemies of the Dark Lord, and in mortal peril already. 
As you say, when has Voldemort ever postponed going
after his enemies? Only, Hagrid tells us, in the case of
the Potters, and that's a mystery that seemingly has 
nothing to do with Snape.

You could say it was somehow Snape's regard for the 
Potters that had protected them up to then. But it
doesn't mesh with the idea that Snape deliberately
was trying to get James and Lily killed.

I am not going for naive Snape. I think he knew that the
Death Eaters were killing people, if not when he joined,
then by the time he overheard the Prophecy. And I
don't think he cared. Why should he care if nameless, faceless
innocents were going to die, if in the here-and-now those
deaths meant that those he cared about would be safe 
and happy? That JKR had Dumbledore admit to this
same  emotional weakness shows, IMO, that she sees 
this as a universal failing of humanity.  

Dumbledore knew that it was his duty to behave as if he
did care, but he put it off, and because of that Sirius died.
DD already realized that indiscriminate death cannot by
definition be limited only to deaths you don't care about.
Snape, I think, only realized it when people he had thought
would be safe were put in danger. 

I don't think Snape ever wanted James dead. I think he
wanted James exposed as the arrogant, cowardly,
unfeeling, unworthy person he'd been when he and
his friends tortured Snape. (And having failed to do
that, exposing Harry as the same would be the next
best thing.) But  a hero's death, defending his wife 
and child? Far too good for him! 

Alla:

> He joined a gang of killers and torturers, so I guess killing and 
> torture was in the job description, does it have to be excused for 
> that reason?

Pippin:
Nobody says it has to be excused. But, um, we do want people to
repent, don't we? If saving innocent lives is important, why would
we want to stop people from doing it? The only question, IMO,
is *has* Snape devoted his life since then to saving innocent 
people? Dumbledore thought he had, he was in a position to know,
and that Snape could not save everybody, including Dumbledore
himself,  does not mean he gets no credit for those he did save. 

I don't believe he murdered Dumbledore of course. It is crystal
clear that Snape could not get away with openly refusing to do it if
he had been expected to do it, and he thought he'd be expected to
do it in the end, the end being when the Dark Lord's game with
Draco was over. So even without the vow, he was committed.
As you say, it's not like the Dark Lord to postpone going after
his enemies. 

We also know that it's possible for even a mediocre
wizard to fake a murder well enough to fool any number of 
eyewitnesses. And Snape is far from mediocre.


> Alla:
> 
> Yes, indeed. Thus when Dumbledore mentions that James saved Snape's 
> life, that means that Snape faced mortal danger, no less. But when 
> Dumbledore says that Harry saved lives that night, it still means that 
> Snape saved lives, LOLOLOLOL. Snape always saves lives after all.

Pippin:
Dumbledore told Fudge that Lupin was trying to save their lives.
It seems to me Snape had as much right to believe the children were in
danger  as Lupin did. For all Snape knew, Sirius and the werewolf had been 
about to kill all four of them when the dementors showed up, and 
would finish the job as soon as Sirius came to. 

Pippin