[HPforGrownups] Re: Unbreakable Vows

[Bart Lidofsky]

No: HPFGUIDX 165579

Neri:
>I personally don't like this looking for loopholes. The Vow scene is a
>very dramatic one, and would be cheapened by this or that loophole.
>Moreover, if it was the only loophole required to save Snape from the
>blame of killing Dumbledore, it might have been worth it. But for that
>you also need several additional loopholes on the tower, and the
>combined effect would IMO amount to poor writing on JKR's side.
>Especially since she give us very little information on the UV magic. 

Bart:
In order for the UV to be useful, it has to be a two-way street. It has to be what the person making the vow understands it to be, not what he or she is pretending they can twist it into. You can lie to others, but you can't lie to yourself. Meaning that Snape has agreed to do what he believes Cissy is asking for. 

In general, one would only make a UV if the person was willing, ready, or even planning to do so without the UV. Since Snape is no fool, then he should know that he has agreed to finish the job in killing Dumbledore. Which means that it was his intent, at the time of makng the vow, to kill Dumbledore. Therefore, assuming that JKR is "playing fair" with the reader, the ONLY explanation that fits DDM!Snape is that Dumbledore was only being kept temporarily alive (once again, the major clue is the unhealable arm). Note there was no time constraint, and it is not necessary to kill a man who has already been killed (unless you're a passenger on the Orient Express, that is). 

Bart