Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 187552

> Montavilla47:
> Yes, I agree. That would have been truly remarkable.
> And suicidal, if he had asked Voldemort! And, pretty
> stupid, since it's like telling Bush that Osama Bin Laden
> is determined to strike within the U.S., while simultaneously
> begging him to let Bin Laden go on his merry way.
> 
> Obviously, of course, Harry wasn't Bin Laden. He was,
> as you say, an innocent baby. But, if you knew for certain
> that he was going to kill your leader when he grew up,
> would you be begging the leader to let him do just that? <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, Harry is not Bin Laden, we agree on that.
> 
> Actually, I blame Snape for not asking Dumbledore to save Potters (yes, I think he was perfectly clear when he talked to Dumbledore), I am not particularly blaming him for not asking Voldemort. But now when you brought it up, I think I have the same answer pretty much, if Snape still considered himself a member of the gang of terrorists, no I would not expect him to ask his leader for his enemy's lives, but if he is not?

Montavilla47:

I think that Snape still did consider himself a member of the DE
whenever he asked Voldemort to spare Lily (either early on or later).
I don't know why he wouldn't consider himself so, because, even if 
had had an epiphany about how wrong the DE were (and I don't think
that he'd had one by then), there's no graceful way to remove 
yourself from DE membership.  That was made very clear when 
Karkakoff tried to hide his way out of the DE, and when Regulus
decided the smartest thing he could do was drink poison.


Alla:
> Yes, I do expect him to do that, especially since he decided to ask for one person already. I totally agree though that it will be a suicidal gesture, but Snape not asking Dumbledore I find pretty damning and inexcusable in a very real and doable way. Him asking Voldemort? Well, as a symbol of real remorse that would work for me that he truly understood what his leader is all about, etc.

Montavilla47:

Well, I guess we're just going over old ground, because I don't 
find it that big a deal that Snape didn't specifically ask Dumbledore
to protect James and Harry.  Nor do I think it that big a deal 
that he didn't care enough about them to ask.  

Look, if Little Timmy goes up to Superman and says, "Oh,
Superman!  Please stop that runaway train, my dog Skipper is
on board," we don't fault him because he neglected to ask
Superman to save the four thousand human passengers 
who are also on board.  They are implied.  

As far as Timmy's concerned, if Superman swooped in and 
got Skipper, leaving the others to their deaths, that would be 
fine.  But we all know that Superman isn't going to go that, 
he's going to go fix the bridge and save everyone.

Likewise, although Snape is only asking about the person
he cares about, there isn't any way for Dumbledore to save
Lily without saving Harry as well--although it's possible he 
might leave James out in the open for Voldemort to pick off.

Of course, that's my feeling on the subject.  It's pretty
obvious that we're meant to share Dumbledore's disgust
about Snape's indifference to James and Harry.  And, 
considering Dumbledore's indifference to the hundreds
or thousands that might have died while Harry enjoyed 
a blythe childhood at Hogwarts, that's pretty ironic.

> Montavilla:
> <HUGE SNIP of the timeline, go upthread to read it>
> I realize this timeline may not be pleasing, as it mitigates
> Snape's sin in not asking Voldemort to spare James and
> Harry, since Harry didn't exist at the time of the asking--
> but I think it makes a lot more sense logically, since it
> makes both Snape and Voldemort appear a bit less idiotic
> in what they ask for and what they grant.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, it makes Snape look more logical  and less idiotic I agree with that. I also think that it makes him less cruel. 
> As to Voldemort, I would think him acting logical does not happen almost ever in canon, so I do not see why he would have acted logically on that occasion. I mean, I  am still trying to figure out how logical it was to give Harry his wand back in GoF or how very logical it was to hide his most precious Horcruxes in the objects related to founders, etc. Because these objects were so noticeable, why not hide Horcruxes in something less ordinary?

Montavilla47:
I don't think giving Harry the wand back was such a stupid move.
Voldemort wanted to show his followers that Harry wasn't a threat.
He needed to reinforce the idea that he was the greatest Dark Lord 
in existence--an image that must have suffered when he got 
defeated by a baby!

And Harry shouldn't have been a threat.  He was a fourteen-year-old
wizard.  Yes, he was a champion, but only with a lot of help.  I'm sure
the fourteen-year-old Tom could have wiped the floor with Harry, so
why not the seventy-year-old Voldemort?

The only reason Harry made it out of the graveyard that night was
because of a fluke.  His wand shared a core with Voldemort's.  Of
course, if Harry had been less magically powerful than he was, the
golden bead thingy would have been forced into his wand and we
would have seen a couple stunning spells and some red flare sparks
instead of the shades of James, Lily, Bertha, Frank, and Cedric.

But it was still a fluke and Voldemort had no way of knowing 
that it would happen.

As for hiding his Horcruxes in the founder's objects--that
wasn't completely illogical either.  If he'd hid his soul in some
old boot, then it might have gotten thrown in an incineration
pit.  In anyone found the founder's objects and didn't know
they contained Horcurxes, they'd still be likely to preserve them,
since they were relics.

It made more sense to me than Tom stealing trinkets from
the kids in the orphanage.


Montavilla47
Who believes she's hit her limit of posts today.