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

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 170696

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?

Julie:
So glad you're amused. Of course, NO ONE fully understands the  Prophecy,
including the readers, since JKR purposely wrote it ambiguously. And if  Snape
really didn't hear all of it, how could he possibly understand all it's  
implications?
Please note, I never said Snape assumed someone couldn't or wouldn't  get
hurt if he told Voldemort about the Prophecy. My point is that we don't  know
that Snape thought he was turning over a BABY for execution, since he  could
have easily assumed Voldemort might monitor the situation to see if a  child
appeared to be turning into a threat. And while it's not likely Voldemort  
would
postpone hunting someone he considers an enemy--he sent out his Death  Eaters 
after Order members presumably, though James and Lily oddly lasted  long 
enough
to defy him three times, whatever that means--we don't know that Voldemort  
ever
hunted babies or children specifically, since he would have no reason  to 
consider
them any magical threat to him at all. (Children of a targeted adult enemy  
might 
certainly become "collateral" damage, but that's a bit different.)
 
If we don't know that, then there's also no way we can know  that Snape would 
have
immediately assumed Voldemort would hunt down a baby preemptively to  prevent 
it
from growing up to become a potential threat. You may  say that Snape should 
have 
considered the *possibility*, and perhaps he later wished he had, but in  his 
focus on
the order of business--report all he hears promptly to Voldemort--he  may 
well have not
given the possible repercussions a whole lot of forethought. (Which is very  
similar to 
Sirius setting up the Prank without giving the possible consequences to  
Snape and
*especially* to Lupin much forethought.)


Alla:
He tries **obsessively** to get the prophecy all year in OOP, does  he 
not?
 
Julie:
Er, that's 15 years later, *after* the Prophecy already came true in part  by
Harry being "marked" as Voldemort's equal, and Harry escaping  Voldemort's
clutches three different times. OF COURSE Voldemort wants the  Prophecy
at that point!
 
Alla:
What exactly may lead Snape to believe that Voldemort would not  act 
right away? Goodness of his heart? Voldemort's I mean?

Julie:
As I said before, because Voldemort doesn't *have* to act right  away. He has
lots of other immediate threats to deal with. Why bother with a  baby that can
do no magic, and won't be able to do so with any reliability for many  years? 
 
 
Alla:
Or of course I always offer  possibility that Snape is stupid at  20 
years old, but no, sorry, even I can not buy it.
 
Julie:
Sirius wasn't stupid either. Nor is Harry, or James, or Lupin. But  they
have all taken actions without fully considering the consequences,
and ended up dismayed by the results. You don't have to be stupid
to do stupid things. It happens every day ;-)

Alla:
I think Snape was perfectly aware of what he was doing and  what dark 
deed he was committing ( Please JKR tell me that DD did not tell  him 
to do that, or get them both together to suffer for eternity).

Julie: 
Snape was committing Dark deeds just by being a DE, and this was 
certainly one of them. I never said he was taking information to  Voldemort
without expecting people could and would be killed over it. It  just doesn't
follow that he expected this information to lead to the murder of a  baby.
 
Alla:
And we do believe Dumbledore, yes? Or we only believe Dumbledore when  
he *trusts Severus Snape* and do not believe him when he brings up  
information that does not sound sooo good for Snape?
 
Julie: 
Or some of us apparently believe the opposite ;-) Seriously, I do  believe
Dumbledore *both* times. It's possible to do so. Snape as a DE  relaying
information to a known killer doesn't look sooo good any way you  slice
it. 
 
Alla:
And in the quote that Mike brought up, I think it is clear enough  for 
me that the only thing Snape did not know **which boy** Voldemort will  
be hunting, NOT that he will be hunting a nameless child and his  
parents. That I think Snape was perfectly aware of.
 
Julie:
Dumbledore often shortens explanations to relate the pertinent facts, as 
we know he has done before. He wants Harry to understand that Snape
didn't *target* Harry and his family. He also said right before that  "Severus
had no idea *how* Voldemort would intepret the Prophecy." The two  statements
together could mean, "Severus didn't know Voldemort was going to  immediately 
go after a helpless baby, and he certainly had no idea the baby that  would
be targeted was going to be the son of James and Lily Potter." 
 
Or it could mean, "Severus knew Voldemort was going to go out  baby-killing
but he thought it would be some baby whose parents he didn't know.  He's
never been much for crying, diaper-messing babies anyway. But he was 
dismayed to find out he knew the parents. It was one thing killing  nameless
babies, but another thing killing babies of known schoolmates."
 
Your choice. Either Snape had some sort of conscience and moral code
that was activated by Voldemort's targeting of a helpless baby  (compatible
with DDM), or he doesn't have one but was dismayed by the targeting  of
*James and Lily's* baby because of that pesky life debt or some  weird
obsession with Lily (LID, OFH). 
 
Really, whatever flavor Snape turns out to be is likely to explain his  
unclear 
motivations in many previous situations within itself. He did it all  because
he has a moral code (DDM), he did it all because of the life debt (LID)  or
he did it all because he was obsessed with getting Lily (OFH).


Alla:
Ceridwen brought up a point that Snape had to report it to  Dark Lord. 
Eh, why and if he had to, does it make it better somehow?

Julie:
Who said it does? Whether Snape reported without considering the
impact of the information on other lives because it was his job, or
he reported while fully envisoning the worst possible consequences
and salivating with glee, he still helped Voldemort carry out his  evil.
 
OTOH, maybe it does make a difference, at least when it comes to
the man's redeemability. The first one is perhaps capable of remorse,
thus potentially redeemable. The second, probably not.

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?
 
Julie:
Who's excusing it? Again for me it's more a matter of redeemability.  But
the debate here is whether Snape assumed Voldemort would immediately
target and kill a BABY and *his parents* (I'm not sure where the  assumption 
that the parents must also be killed comes from, but I guess it's  because
babies are almost always with their parents, unlike older children who  might
be at school, with friends or even alone), or whether Snape might have  taken
the Prophecy to Voldemort without making such a SPECIFIC assumption.  I
simply think it could easily be the latter. Snape would know that the  
Prophecy
could lead to a threat to someone at some point, if Voldemort took it  
seriously,
but he doesn't necessarily make the leap that Voldemort is going to  shoot out
the door immediately to go baby-hunting.
 
Renee<SNIP>
Nor does Dumbledore in any way suggest that  Snape saved anyone's life
> or soul that night. Claims that Snape saved  Harry's life and soul are
> therefore grossly exaggerated. Harry1 was  saved by Harry2, and by no
> one else.


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.

After all, he conducted that act of  **exceptional kindless**, 
remember? He conjured stretchers to deliver Sirius  to execution. 
MAHAHAHAH. I will deliver you to death with all care and  kindess I can.
 
Julie:
I missed where someone said he was "kind." His action was simply  that
of a decent human being. He could have acted indecently, by leaving  them,
by kicking Sirius in the head a couple of times (not so different than  Sirius
banging *his* levitating body against the tunnel walls out of spite), or he  
could
have summoned the Dementors to suck Sirius's soul, and claimed he was
still unconscious while it happened. He could have done any number of
petty things while he assumed he wasn't being watched. 

But he didn't. He simply and efficiently did his job. It doesn't have  to be 
a kind act,
just the RIGHT act. Proving Snape can (and in this case did) do  the right 
thing on
his own initiative, simply *because* it's the right thing. That's not proof  
of DDM, but 
it does suggest he was acting on an ethical code, thus it is  supportive of 
the theory.
 
Julie 

 
 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]