On the trivial and the profound.

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 165605

> > Pippin:
> > Not quite. Voldemort hasn't ordered Snape not to kill Dumbledore, he's
> > ordered him to let Draco try first.
> 
> Neri:
> Not quite <g>. Voldemort hasn't ordered Snape to let Draco try
> *first*. 

Pippin:
"He intends me to do it in the end, I think. But he is 
determined that Draco should try first. You see, in the unlikely
event that Draco succeeds, I shall be able to remain at Hogwarts
a little longer, fulfilling my useful role as spy." --HBP ch 2


> Neri:
> I'm referring to the third part. The third part implies that if Draco
> tries to kill Dumbledore and fails, and Snape isn't present to step in
> and do the deed instead (say, because he's teaching or sleeping at the
> time) then he has broken the UV and he's dead, and there are no "to
> the best of your abilities" excuses in this part.

Pippin:
But there's nothing about instantaneous action, either. Draco
fails with the necklace and the poison, fails to fix the cabinet for
months on end, Dumbledore continues to live, yet Snape doesn't 
fall dead on the spot. The vow puts no time 
limit on Snape's performance, which makes it a  poor
contract. Narcissa needs a better lawyer <g>

Snape, OTOH,  is a DADA specialist -- he probably knows a whole lot
more about the Unbreakable Vow and its operations than Narcissa
does, and certainly more than we do. 

Narcissa herself put a loophole in it, as you say, to keep Snape
from having to kill Dumbledore at once. And if there's one, there 
may be others that Snape thought of and she didn't.

You don't like  loopholes, because Snape being forced to do
the deed makes a better story. But only if the story is about Snape.
If the story is about Harry,  then it's better if there is a loophole 
and Harry refuses to see it. In a bildungsroman, the hero's 
chief antagonist is not the villain, though villains there may be.
The chief antagonist is the hero's immature self.

> 
> Neri:
> Sorry, not buying this stuff <g>. DDM!Snape pities Narcissa, so his
> solution is to take a magical Vow meaning either Dumbledore or himself
> must end up dead? I reminds you we were looking for *rational* reasons.

Pippin:
What's so rational about "Snape has the hots for Narcissa, so he takes a
vow meaning either Dumbledore or himself must wind up dead"?  Either
way, he has an emotional bias towards helping her, which he can 
rationalize by telling himself that Narcissa must have information 
vital to the Order. Once he's convinced himself of that, the rest
follows.

 Ask yourself, would Harry have risked his life to convince Dumbledore 
that Draco had discovered a viable method of smuggling Death 
Eaters into the school? If Harry promised to kill Dumbledore or die, 
would he have any intention of killing Dumbledore rather than dying? 
That's the DDM! mindset.


Pippin