On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating)/ Snape and his importance.

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 165908

> Magpie:
> Snape's the one
> protecting James son, not James, until HBP.
>
> Alla:
>
> His protection of James's son IMO is really open for debate prior to
> HBP as well.
>
> Magpie:
> Hmmm. I don't think it is in the context I meant it. Even if you
> think Snape was just leaving Harry alone and then handing him over
> to Voldemort, I was just saying that Snape was the one called on
and
> acting in that capacity. (Though I should have remembered that
James
> does protect Harry in GoF, and Harry's Patronus might also be seen
> as protection connected to James.) James can't protect Harry
because
> he is dead, but Snape is in position to do so.

Alla:

Right and I am questioning that Snape ever protected Harry to protect
Harry ( except of course saving his life in PoA). I am saying that it
is possible that Snape first and foremost did things to save himself
or to further his goals and if it is protected Harry by extension, it
is not really protection IMO.

ETA: reposted to change that of course . I meant saving in PS/SS. The 
last thing I believe that Snape was concerned with saving Harry in 
PoA.


> Magpie:
> No, I wasn't positing Snape and the Annoying Little Gryffindor at
> all. I was not suggesting that Snape is the one who's going to
> destroy Voldemort. Voldemort hasn't been destroyed yet, obviously,
> nor have the Horcruxes been destroyed, and I wasn't claiming that
> Snape would be the one to do it. I am saying that like it or not,
> the story over and over comes back to Snape and Snape's actions.
> Snape gave the Prophecy to Voldemort, and told Dumbledore that he'd
> done so, setting the Fidelius in motion. Snape was put in the key
> position of double agent in the war. Snape's actions *matter*. That
> does not make him a hero or give him Harry's role. But Harry's role
> has up until now often been *reactive*. So yes, Snape's actions are
> very important to the story. It's his mistake that put Voldemort
> onto Harry's trail, possibly his decision to take the Vow that made
> things turn out the way they did in HBP, certainly (imo) his action
> that kills Dumbledore. I find it difficult to look at HBP in
> particular and *not* see Snape's actions as very important. By
> contrast Harry in HBP is still playing catch up. He's not quite in
> the loop yet.

Alla:

Sure it does come back to Snape's actions - what I am questioning
though is that Snape's actions are **more** important than Harry, not
that they are important initself. Yes, Snape started the circle of
Harry's misery. In that sense, the story of Harry's life may not have
happened, but isn't the argument like that often given by Snape
defenders?

That Voldemort could have learned the prophecy anyways, that he
already targeted the Potters and could have attacked regardless and
that is why Snape's actions are not that important?

I mean, I guess if you would say that Snape's actions are more
important for plot development so far, I guess I would agree, but if
you are saying that Snape's actions are more important for ultimate
resolution of the story, then we are in disagreement.

Snape is the loyal to DD superspy or stinking traitor and murderer,
take your pick, but he is not the one who saved Peter from being
killed and thus probably set in the motion the mysterious ancient
magic that can play key role at the end.

Snape is not the one, whom young mother heroically defended and thus
set in motion another incredibly important ( hopefully) magic.


Snape is not the one who inspires people to follow him ( see DA) and
thus could be the key to unite the houses and win the fight.

So, whether Harry is playing catch up or not in regards of
information, I am still not agreeing that his actions are in general
more important that Harry's.


> Magpie:
> But by the definition of, say, Felix Felicitas, hasn't Snape
> potentially already been lucky? He was a Death Eater who didn't go
> to prison, found a kindly ear for his tale of remorse in
Dumbledore,
> didn't get killed by Voldemort in GoF. I also agree with what
you're
> saying that in the long run Snape might not really be so lucky--and
> he's been miserable enough that it's strange to apply that word to
> him. But at the same time there's short term "lucky" that Snape
> could be said to have demonstrated.
>

Alla:

Sure. But this is not the kind of luck I was talking about at all :)