On the trivial and the profound.

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 165641

> 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:
Thanks, this was precisely my distinction. Snape is sure that
Voldemort is determined that Draco should try first, apparently
because Voldemort has told him that, but he only "thinks" that
Voldemort intends him to do it in the end. 

> 
> > 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>
> 

Neri:
This isn't law. It's magic, and a very dangerous one. Draco doesn't
fail with the necklace and the poison, because he has not been caught,
and thus he's still free to make another try. For the same reason, as
long as Draco hasn't fixed the cabinet but still has a fair chance to
do so, he hasn't failed yet. But if he gets killed, then he certainly
has failed. If he's locked in Azkaban or even just expelled from
Hogwarts he doesn't have another chance at Dumbledore's life and so
he's failed. Voldemort isn't going to wait until Draco is 150 years
old for him to kill Dumbledore, and the UV isn't either. No time
limits would make the whole UV magic worthless. 


> Pippin:
> 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. 
> 

Neri:
You can be very good at DADA and yet you won't be able to cheat the UV
if it's not cheatable. Just like you can't cheat the Fidelius no
matter how good you are at Charms, and you can't cheat Felix Felicis
no matter how good you are at Potions (or Slughorn would have surely
used it much more than twice in a lifetime). The whole UV thing would
be rather pointless if anyone good at DADA could fool it. Bellatrix
knows something about these things too, and she's generally very
suspicious of Snape, and yet she doesn't accuse him of slithering out
of the UV terms. In her amazement you see that she believes this time
Snape has committed himself totally. It never even crosses her mind
that the UV can be fooled.

> Pippin:
> 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.
> 

Neri:
No, this isn't a loophole. It's a simple condition, and one that Snape
and Narcissa have discussed openly just a few pages before.


> Pippin:
> 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:
No, you completely miss the reason I dislike loopholes. In fact I
don't even dislike loopholes, exactly. It depends on the situation.
When we receive from JKR almost zero background information, as with
the UV, the "loopholes" are much larger then the walls. You could fly
a flock of dragons through those "loopholes". We know so little that
there's no fun at all playing the loophole game, because almost
anything would be possible. In such cases I believe we have to accept
the little information we did receive from JKR as reliable and
binding. So for example, if no time limit was specified in the UV it
means that no such limit is required.

OTOH there are other cases in which we receive a lot of background
information from JKR, and in these cases it's indeed fun to play the
loophole game. For example, Harry and Hermione discuss in detail the
Hogwarts security arrangements, so there it's a fair and fun challenge
to try and discover how can Draco find a loophole in these
arrangements. But even in such cases the most interesting solution
would usually *not* be a loophole, but something completely original.
This is why Draco's final solution with the Vanishing Cabinets has
nothing to do with the security arrangements discussed by Harry and
Hermione. It is not a loophole but something completely innovative.
You need to think "outside the box" to discover it. I'd predict that
*if* DDM!Snape indeed managed to fool the UV, the solution would be
something outside the box and not a loophole.


> > 
> > 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.

Neri:
It's rational because if Snape isn't DDM, he doesn't care about what
happens to Dumbledore. So if he estimates that he can gain more than
he risks, then making the UV is rational. But if he's DDM, then
choosing a course that must lead to either his own death or
Dumbledore's isn't rational. It's stupid, as indeed the final result
of HBP shows. If Snape was DDM than making the UV was really stupid of
him. 


> Pippin:
>  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.

Neri:
In Harry's case we are told what's going on inside his head, so we'd
know that he has always meant to die himself, not to kill Dumbledore.
Although even in Harry's case there would always be an ugly suspicion
that subconsciously Harry has chosen his own life over Dumbledore's,
say because he was angry with him. This is probably why JKR has never
made Harry promise such a thing. But with Snape we don't even get to
look into his head, so we'd never know for certain that he has
intended to die himself. 


Neri