Snape's Culpability in the Prank (WAS: James and Sirius)

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 181317

>>> Mike previously:
> 
> Severus trip down the tunnel was NOT because he was duped and 
> would *probably* have happened anyway had he learned the 
> information from a different source. 
> 
> And had he not gotten the information from Sirius, he still 
> wouldn't have the critical information of the Marauders being 
> Animagi, only then we couldn't blame Sirius for withholding it.
> 
> So Sirius revealed the Willow's secret most likely with the 
> fervent hope that Severus would use it. But the Willow's secret
> was the MEANS, not the MOTIVE, for Severus' trip to werewolf land. 
> The motive was all Severus. <<<

> Julie:
> So Sirius had no motive? I very much disagree. 

Mike:
If you reread my first sentence of my third paragraph above you will 
realize that I too disagree with your question. But in the part 
below, I contend that it was *Severus'* motivation that mattered 
here. It was Severus intent to go down the tunnel and he was NOT 
doing so because Sirius wanted him to. Which, to me, means he would 
have done so regardless of how or from whom he learned the secret of 
freezing the Willow.


> Julie:
> As for critical information, I think the more critical information
> Snape didn't have was that Lupin was UNCONFINED in the Shack.

Mike:
This, of course, presupposes that he thought the werewolf *was* 
confined in the first place. How that can be interpreted from canon 
I'm unclear.


> Julie:
> Certainly that ties into the Marauders being Animagi, thus able
> to be around an unconfined werewolf in their animagi forms.

Mike:
That's how the Marauders did it, so what? That Severus seemingly 
disregarded the danger of a werewolf encounter, out of hubris or 
whatever, renders the Marauders' Animagi abilities a moot point. 
There's nothing in canon to indicate that Severus prepared himself 
for such an encounter. Just as there's nothing in canon to indicate 
that Sirius intent *caused* Severus to go to meet a werewolf.



> Julie:
> Snape has no reason to suspect the Marauders of being Animagi,
> and every reason to assume Lupin is somehow confined or rendered
> powerless if the Marauders can be in his presence during a full
> moon. That Sirius knew this and deliberately kept it from him is  
> deliberately duping Snape, IMO.

Mike:
So, Sirius knew two secrets and only told Severus one of them. 
Shocking isn't it? How could Severus possibly know that Sirius 
wouldn't tell him everything? They were such good mates, after all.

Your argument implies that Sirius was duty-bound to tell Severus the 
rest of the Marauders were Animagi. Which is a most silly argument, 
made moreso by the relationship that existed between the two.


> Julie:
> <snip>
> The real scenario is that Sirius gave him the information with
> the deliberate intent that Snape would use it and suffer for it.

Mike:
Worked too, didn't it? 


> Julie:
> <snip>
> Does that make Sirius's action less unworthy and wrong? Not in my
> opinion.

Mike:
And imo, Sirius' actions or intentions had no effect on the 
motivations and intent of one Severus Snape. Sirius' actions, no 
matter how unworthy or wrong, did not *cause* Severus to want to go 
down that tunnel, a rule breaking excursion every much as wrong as 
the Marauders rule breaking.


> Julie:
> <snip>
> Equally, I think Sirius also had a reasonable expectation that
> Snape would use that information to his own detriment, unwittingly
> (as I don't see any reason Snape would go into the Shrieking 
> Shack expecting to meet an unconfined werewolf which he couldn't
> hope to subdue).

Mike:
I'm in agreement right up to "unwittingly". I think Sirius would 
expect Severus to take anything he told him with a grain of salt. 
That Sirius hoped Severus would screw up is immutable. But, to whose 
detriment was Severus hoping to use the information, and is there 
any doubt that Sirius knew that score?

I would also agree with your parenthetical statement if you placed
a period after "Shack".


> Julie:
> Malicious intent is malicious intent, 

Mike:
What kind of intent do you suppose Severus had in setting off down 
the tunnel? And why doesn't his intent matter?



> Julie:
> Hmm. James acted for good, and Wormtail acted for evil. Again
> it's a matter of intent, which to me is the most important
> consideration (and why I see Wormtail as more culpable in the
> deaths of the Potters than Snape, whose intent changed when he
> tried to undo his actions).

Mike:
Hmm. That's what I said regarding James' and Wormtail's intent. I 
guess the fact that the Potters wouldn't have needed a Secret Keeper 
if it weren't for Snape and his eavesdropping matters little in your 
book. And the fact that Snape cared little for the nameless, faceless 
people until the name became Lily, shows real character, does it?

I don't buy this 'poor Severus', he couldn't get the toothpaste back 
into the tube argument. Harry had one thing right, it wasn't a 
mistake. An after the fact regrettable act maybe, but Snape 
*intended* to bring the prophesy to Voldemort, he was only sorry
when he found out who the prophesy meant to Lord Thingy.


> Julie:
> AFAWK with the Prank, Sirius's intent was to see Snape scared out
> of his pants/robe, while Snape's intent was to prove a theory that
> might get his enemies expelled   <snip>

Mike:
I think it turns the whole story inside out to say that Sirius had 
more culpability than Severus with regards to the Prank.



> Julie, who sees Sirius as acting quite badly and Snape acting quite
> stupidly in this incident, both proving as someone mentioned 
> earlier that teenage boys have very little impulse control  ;-)

Mike, who was a teenage boy and therefore thinks he might have a 
little more insight as to how much impulse control teenage boys have 
than the women he's debating this with ;) 

BTW, Pippin mentioned it, and though I don't deny impulse control is 
a problem for teenage boys, I still have a chromosomal advantage over 
her in the experience department.