Secrets (Long) OLD POST REPOST

[mesmer44]

No: HPFGUIDX 186536


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Steve wrote:
> > 
> > Lack of motive is the key issue here. Sirius had no motive for having done what he apparently did. Snape had no motive to investigate because he believes the seemingly open and shut case against Sirius.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Yes. Exactly--at least with regard to Snape. Snape has no motive to investigate a case that seems to be open and shut. He believes what everyone else believes. I thought you were arguing that Snape, being an intelligent man, would question Sirius Black's guilt. I'm saying that he has no reason to do that, and every reason (the evidence against Black; the apparent murder of Pettigrew of the real culprit; Dumbledore's testimony; his own experience (the so-called Prank); and his own inclinations not to do so. Granted, Black has no motive that Snape knows about, but everything else points to Black's guilt, which even Dumbledore and McGonagall believed in.
> 
> Steve:
> >  Snape also doesn't have a personal motive to pursue the matter further, as Sirius isn't someone he's particularly fond of. Thinking of Sirius as being guilty is IMO fairly easy for Snape. If Lily was accused of something that she had no motive to do and there was a seemingly open and shut case against her, I'd be willing to bet Snape would consider her lack of motive more seriously. 
> 
> Carol:
> Well, yes, but we're not talking about Lily. We're talking about Black, whose guilt he's quite happy to accept and not about to question. And why should he when no one else does, especially when he believes that Black tried to murder *him* when they were sixteen, using his dear friend Remus Lupin as the murder weapon? If *Dumbledore* had believed Black to be innocent, Snape might have had second thoughts about it, but with Pettigrew "dead," there really seems to be no question in *anybody's* mind, even those who liked Black as a boy, that he did it.
> 
> Steve: 
> > Throughout the books the real motives vs the perceived motives of characters are major plot devices by JKR. To name a few: Snape's motives for protecting Harry. Snape's motives for AK'ing DD. Sirius's motives for betraying the Potters and killing over a dozen bystanders. Marietta's motives for doing what she did. Ron's motives for leaving Harry and Hermione. HRH's motives for going off on their own and not going to Hogwarts. DD's motives for doing anything. There are several more I'm sure.
> 
> Carol:
> Exactly. That's what I'm talking about (sort of) when I say that the characters often "know" (in their own view) what's going on when in fact what they "know" is sometimes partly true and sometimes not true at all. It's the mystery story element, JKR concealing what really happened (or a character's true motives) till the end of a particular book or the end of the series. Harry and Snape both "know" that Black betrayed the Potters but find out at different times that they're wrong. Harry "know" that Snape "murdered" Dumbledore--only he didn't; it was a coup de grace on DD's orders.
> 
> But I don't see how any of this relates to the idea that I was arguing against, which is that Snape should have known that Black wasn't guilty and should have investigated. Just because he's both intelligent and curious (or was as a boy) doesn't mean that he has a motive for trying to find the real traitor and murderer. He "knows" who it is. Only, like everyone else in the WW, he's wrong.
> 
> Steve: 
> > So, Snape doesn't know with absolute certainty that Sirius is guilty. But he also doesn't know what posibly could have been a motive for Sirius doing what he supposedly did. If it was someone Snape cared for, maybe that would have been enough of an excuse to investigate further. Maybe not.
> 
> Carol:
> Except that Snape *is* absolutely certain that Black is guilty. And when you're absolutely certain of something, you don't investigate it. Especially since there's nothing to investigate. The only witnesses have had their memories Obliviated and the only piece of evidence, Pettigrew's finger, is in his mother's possession. Only two people know the truth. One is paying for his "crime" in Azkaban (until he escapes to commit the murder he was arrested for); the other is "dead." Just why Snape would want to question the man he thinks is out to kill Harry is unclear. And certainly, he's not going to question Ron's rat, who, to Snape as to Ron, if just the Weasleys' pet rat.
> 
> Steve: 
> > Steve, who believes character's motives are important considerations, but knows authors sometimes manipulate those motives to push their plots in certain directions.
> 
> CarorL:
> I agree completely, and I agree that JKR conceals a number of characters' motives, particularly Snape's, through incomplete information and misdirection. But I don't see any connection between that tactic and Snape's failure to investigate Black's guilt. Snape, in this instance, is in exactly the same position as Harry and therefore the reader until Harry learns the truth--along with the reader. Snape, who overhears only part of Lupin's story and believes none of it because unlike HRH, he doesn't see Pettigrew transform and then escape--remains in the same position as the rest of the WW, continuing to believe Black guilty until he actually sees him transform from a dog to a man in GoF.
> 
> So, of course motives are important. And, of course, JKR conceals those motives from us on many occasions. But that's not the point here. It's that the characters themselves often mistake other character's motives (and other "facts" as well), basing their actions on insufficient information. And that's what Snape is doing in PoA. He thinks he's rescuing Harry from a murderer and his werewolf accomplice and that Harry ought to be grateful. He's wrong, but we only find that out after Snape is knocked unconscious. *He* never sees the evidence that proves Lupin's and Black's unlikely tale, the transformation of Scabbers into Peter Pettigrew, complete with Pettigrew's confession and escape.
> 
> If only Lupin had kept his mouth shut and not called Snape a fool, blaming Snape's fury on a schoolboy prank, Snape might have heard the rest of the story. But, convinced as he was that he "knew" the truth, he might not have listened even then. He believed that he and the kids were in the presence of two very dangerous men and he acted accordingly. (In a way, of course, he was right. The transformed Lupin, who had indeed forgotten his potion, really was extremely dangerous. And so, in his petty way, was the real murderer, Pettigrew, whose presence Snape was not even aware of.)
> 
> Carol, who actually agrees with most of Steve's argument but doesn't quite see how it relates to what Snape "knew" in the sense that the unreliable narrator uses that word
>
Steve replies:

I don't think it relates very well to that specific sense of "knew" that you are referring to, at least as I understand what you mean. And although we've been primarily talking about Snape's belief in Sirius betraying the Potters and killing all those muggles, and not about Snape basing his actions in PoA on his POV based on what he "knew" at the time, it was an interesting diversion that did fill in valuable info on Snape's attitude and feelings towards Sirius. (As was my comments about what if Lily had been accused of such a crime being an example of a situation where Snape's attitude and feelings toward a person being a motive sufficient to having him go beyond what what obvious to search for what was truth. It's fine to accept what is commonly believed to be true if it's someone you don't know or strongly dislike.  It's another thing entirely that motivates you if it involves someone you love dearly). 

Although, on one point, perhaps, the lack of one piece of information Snape had from any pov, narrative or otherwise. may have been significant if Snape had been so inclined to consider it.  The info Snape has in the book from the unreliable narrator is that DD testified that Sirius was the Potter's secret keeper. If all that was reported (in the Daily Prophet perhaps?) was that DD verified that Sirius was at one time secret keeper, an entirely valid question is "Was he the secret keeper for sure at the time of LV's attack on the Potters?".  Perhaps I'm the only one curious about this, having watched a ton of tv shows where those kinds of questions are always asked by defense attorneys like Perry Mason.

As Wormtail was the secret keeper at that time, and as Wormtail is supposedly dead, another common assumption is that Sirius must have still been the secret keeper. It's not a question that would have been asked by anyone other than Sirius's defense lawyer, which unfortunately wasn't available to him. If such an advocate would asked: "Professor Dumbledore, are you absolutely certain that Sirius Black was still the Potter's secret keeper at the time of their attack?", then DD would have had to say "no".  But this didn't happen, so, yes, as you've mentioned, Snape doesn't really have a logical reason to ask it either, due to the other evidence logically indicating if not actually proving Sirius's guilt.

Steve, wondering what Sirius's trial would have been like if DD had been his defense lawyer.